private business

selection

Ordered ,
	That Liz Blackman, Mr. Nicholas Brown and Mr. Alan Campbell be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Frank Roy and Claire Ward be added to the Committee.— [Mark Tami.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Social Inclusion

Anne McIntosh: How he measures levels of social inclusion in rural areas.

Liam Byrne: The Government's strong rural communities programme sets out our goals for those living in rural areas. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs monitors the outcomes of the programme, and our own public service agreement for socially excluded adults requires all local authorities in rural and urban areas to report on outcomes for particularly disadvantaged groups.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Minister and his ministerial team on their appointments, and look forward very much to working with them. Is he aware that in areas such as the Vale of York and rural north Yorkshire there are pockets of rural deprivation that have worsened over the past 10 years? People suffer from feelings of isolation and have poor access to rural transport because of the fact that Yorkshire is the biggest county in the country. What are his proposals to include them more, especially in the delivery of public services across the board? How will he ensure that rural communities get a bigger share of the public budget, compared with urban areas, than they do at the moment?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome. I want to make three points in response to her question. First, she and the House will be aware of the work that the Government are doing to bring decision making in respect of the development of local areas much closer to local communities. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has brought together plans for housing and for new jobs under the single integrated strategy, and that gives both rural and urban areas much greater latitude and power to drive economic development. Thirdly, the Housing Corporation has set out ambitious plans to make affordable rural housing more widely available. Obviously, the Cabinet Office will retain a very strong interest in the livelihood of those at the bottom, as that is the indicator that we are particularly tasked to monitor, but giving local areas greater power to bring together economic development plans and making sure that councils are backed by the increases in central Government funding that we are providing are absolutely key to making progress on the issues that she has identified.

Albert Owen: May I also congratulate the Minister on his new role? I wish him every success in it. Although free bus travel has been a huge success in rural areas of Wales, including in my constituency of Ynys Môn, many groups of people, including pensioners, still feel isolated. Will he join me in congratulating citizens advice bureaux on the benefit take-up campaign that they are holding this week? I am supporting it, and I am sure that many other hon. Members will too. Does he agree that local authorities across England and Wales have a greater responsibility to make sure that pensioner groups and individual pensioners are aware of all the benefits to which they are entitled, and that each year they should distribute a list of those entitlements with the council tax forms?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of welcome. I should like to extend my congratulations to the citizens advice bureaux in his area on the work that they are doing. Many Labour Members are extremely proud of the work that the Government have done over the past 10 or 11 years to lift hundreds of thousands of pensioners out of both absolute and relative poverty. The changes that we have made to pensions and pension credit are central to that progress, but it is vital for everyone in public life to make sure that as many people as possible know what their benefit rights are.

Patrick Cormack: In extending my warm congratulations and best wishes to the new Chancellor, may I ask him to give the House his definition of the term "social inclusion"?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. In the past three or four days, I have been bombarded with so many definitions that I am going to give him a concise estimate by way of correspondence.

David Kidney: May I congratulate the Minister on his promotion and his elevation to the Privy Council? It is a pleasure to see such a strong west midlands presence in his ministerial team.
	I have been working with the community council in Staffordshire to promote social enterprises and businesses such as community shops and community orchards that promote social inclusion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a useful way forward, and does his Department support social enterprises in that sort of work?

Liam Byrne: The Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who is not from the west midlands, will have more to say about that a little later in the time we have been given this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) is absolutely right to say that the energy, enthusiasm, enterprise and innovation that the third sector brings to tackling some of these questions is one of our greatest assets in this country. That is why the Government have done so much over the last 10 or 11 years to back those organisations. We have doubled the amount of Government support to them over the past 10 or 11 years. Increasingly, it will be for local communities to find the best ways of working with those organisations, and that is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has such ambitious plans for devolving power from Westminster and Whitehall to local areas and an expectation that local authorities will delegate power further to local communities.

Ann Winterton: The Minister is quite correct. Although housing, better employment opportunities and transport links are vital for rural areas, does he not agree that education is, too? Will he join me in regretting that one of my local schools, serving a wide rural area, the Church Lawton primary school, is being considered for closure in the dying days of Cheshire county council? Will he join me in asking the county council to look again at the matter?

Liam Byrne: It is not in my brief so I can but guess the political control of the hon. Lady's county council.

Michael Fabricant: They have just told you!

Liam Byrne: Sometimes, I do not need things written down in front of me, with the support I have behind me.
	If truth be told, the number of schools in rural areas that have closed over the last 10 years is much smaller than it used to be. Overall, because of the changes we have made over the past 10 or 11 years, education is delivering on average better results in rural schools. Obviously, I shall be happy to look into the case the hon. Lady has brought to my attention and I will consult colleagues in the Government before I write to her.

Nick Hurd: I add my voice of congratulation to the new ministerial team, and commiserate with the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on assuming that grandest of office at the very moment it is demoted from the Cabinet.
	The new index of deprivation produced for the Government by Oxford university reports that almost 50 per cent. of neighbourhoods across England have markedly deteriorated over the past four years on the measure of geographical deprivation, which is what happens when communities are stripped of key local services. Post offices are of course the most devastating loss. More than a quarter of the network has been lost and now we are warned that thousands more will be forced to close if the Post Office loses its contract for the card account. As the Government dither, communities live with uncertainty. Given the impact on social exclusion, what is the Cabinet Office view on the future of the crucial card account, and when on earth will we get a decision?

Liam Byrne: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his rapid rise through the ranks of his colleagues. He joins a strong Front-Bench team.
	If the hon. Gentleman spent a little longer looking at some of the evidence from up and down the country, he would see that people living in both rural and urban areas where there is deprivation have actually become better off over the past few years. That has not happened by accident; it is because of the extra investment that has gone into connecting people with jobs and into education and cutting crime. He brought up the example of Post Office accounts—a subject that has been debated at some length in these parliamentary questions over the past few months. He knows that about £150 million a year in subsidy goes from the Government into the post office network, so perhaps he or one of his colleagues would confirm today whether that policy is supported on the Opposition Benches. I think he would accept that £3.5 million a week in subsidy is not sustainable and that we need to make changes, but making sure that 95 per cent. of the population in both urban and rural areas live within 3 miles of a post office is perhaps an acceptable compromise.

Voluntary Sector

David Taylor: What recent discussions he has had with Treasury Ministers on support for those working in the voluntary sector; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: I intend to meet Treasury Ministers regularly to discuss a range of issues that affect the third sector.

David Taylor: The current economic downturn disproportionately hurts charities and voluntary organisations in terms of costs, income and staffing. Will the new Minister press Treasury colleagues to introduce early measures to help the third sector, especially in reforming gift aid allowance and approved mileage allowance payments, and so demonstrate to unpaid volunteers the Government's commitment to help them and not just the exorbitantly rewarded City bankers who fund the Conservative party and who have so recklessly gambled with all our futures?

Liam Byrne: Many hon. Members represent constituencies that are made substantially better by the work of volunteers and volunteering organisations. The truth is that the voluntary sector enters the current economic circumstances in much more robust health because of the fact that this Government have doubled, from £5 billion to £10 billion, our support for the sector over the past 10 or 11 years. Gift aid is one of the most substantial contributions that we have made to that new strength: it is now worth approximately £850 million a year in assistance to the voluntary sector. I am not sure that I shall be able to persuade the Treasury overnight to be any more generous—it made substantial contributions in the transitional allowances given in the last Budget. The key is that we understand what happens to giving and volunteering in the new economic conditions, which is why it is so important that we now have up and running—from 1 October—a new research centre on philanthropy, which is supported by the Government. That will allow us to make decisions based on evidence rather than anecdote.

Nigel Evans: One of the delights of the Chancellor's new post is that he will be able to distribute money from the Duchy of Lancaster funds to voluntary organisations and charities. There is a pot of money there—after the events of the past few days, we hope that it is still there. Will he do all he can to promote that fund, so that we can develop the voluntary sector within the County Palatine?

Liam Byrne: I am extremely grateful for that advice. I now know where to look for advice on where that money is and what it should be spent on in the years to come.

Hugh Bayley: Over the summer, almost all the volunteer advisers at York CAB resigned over differences they had with the management of the bureau. John Stoker, a former chief charity commissioner, has been asked to review what went wrong. Will the Minister look at the review when it is published, to see what lessons can be learned from it, so that people are encouraged to volunteer?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing this matter and bringing it to the attention of Ministers and the House. Although I cannot comment on individual details, I welcome Mr. Stoker's involvement and hope that his review will lead to a satisfactory resolution.

Susan Kramer: I, too, join in welcoming the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his post. As he will be well aware, the economic recession will put many new demands on voluntary services dealing with those who are financially damaged by the economic turmoil. Will he make sure that the voice of the voluntary sector is heard in the new National Economic Council? At present, voluntary institutions are both losing volunteers and donations and facing increased demands. Will he get behind efforts to ensure that funding does not dry up in this critical period?

Liam Byrne: The third sector will of course have a voice on the National Economic Council: that voice will be mine. I shall be supported in that work by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). It is extremely important that we understand exactly what extra demands are being made on the voluntary and third sector in slower economic conditions, and that across Government we understand whether there are lines of funding, such as Futurebuilders, that can be directed in a helpful way. I am glad to be able to tell the House that my hon. Friend lost no time in getting together yesterday with about 45 organisations to begin that very conversation.

Andy Reed: As I am sure the Chancellor knows, a quarter of all volunteers work in the sports sector. The Treasury has introduced the CASC scheme, which allows community amateur sports clubs to get tax relief, but there is a campaign to get junior subscriptions exempted from tax and to improve the position in relation to the tax system. Will he use his office to put pressure on the Treasury to introduce some of those measures as soon as possible, to encourage as many volunteers as possible and to encourage young people in particular to get involved in volunteering?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate of the sporting sector and of young people. We want to make a number of changes to cut red tape and make the business of administration much easier for the third sector. If I may, I shall spend more time with him in the coming months to make sure that we implement the package that was put together for the last Budget as fast as we can.

Francis Maude: I join in congratulating the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his colleagues on their appointment, and we look forward to working together to establish common ground wherever we can. On that front, does he share my concern about the fact that v, which the Government set up to channel more than £100 million of public money into stimulating volunteering among young people, is currently commissioning an evaluation of its effectiveness? As the Government's last volunteering initiative, the Experience Corps, had to be scaled back after an independent assessment of its effectiveness, does he agree that a rigorous independent assessment of v's effectiveness is needed?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's welcome, and I look forward to working with him. I suspect that there is common ground between us; it is important that we find it and do our very best to champion causes. In an evaluation of any programme, when efficiencies can be made, it is important that we find that out, so I am more than happy to consider the points that he makes and to explore what there is in them. Of course, if there is room to ensure shared evaluation of projects, that is absolutely what we must ensure.

Francis Maude: In the Minister's conversations with the Treasury, will he raise the case of the Catz Club, which accepted that it illegally made donations to the Labour party? Catz Club was dependent on loans from the Cabinet Office quango Futurebuilders to stay afloat. When he has had a chance to look into the issue, will he tell us what role was played by Margaret McDonagh, the former general secretary of the Labour party, who is a director of the Catz Club, and by Amanda Delew, a former Labour party fundraiser who is now the fundraiser for the Catz Club? Can he tell us why the Futurebuilders website has removed all reference to its funding of Catz Club?  [Interruption.]

Liam Byrne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answers, let me say that there is too much private conversation in the Chamber. It is unfair to those hon. Members who are here to listen to these questions and answers.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) for bringing that case to my attention. He will know, first, that political parties' members of staff are entitled to go on and do other things and, secondly, that charitable organisations are regulated by the Charity Commission, rather than by me. However, now that he has brought the case to my attention, I will of course do what I can to review it and to correspond with him.

David Jones: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Government programmes to encourage voluntary work.

Andrew MacKay: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Government programmes to encourage voluntary work.

Kevin Brennan: A range of Government programmes has encouraged and supported volunteering. The statistics from the 2007-08 citizenship survey show that the proportion of people who volunteered at least once in the past 12 months remains high, at 73 per cent. of all adults.

David Jones: As a fellow Welsh Member, may I be the first Conservative Member to congratulate the Minister on his preferment? On 7 May this year, his predecessor told the House that the youth volunteering charity, v, had secured pledges of £32 million in match funding from the private sector. A check on the charity's website this morning revealed that the pledges had not increased; the sum was still £32 million. Is the House to infer from that that the charity is having difficulty securing match funding from the private sector, and what assurances can he give the House that it will meet its target of £45 million?

Kevin Brennan: The direct answer is no, it does not mean that v has stopped raising money. Indeed, it is due to report its latest figures shortly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman looks forward to that. I also remind him that the £32 million is matched by public funds, so there is £64 million of extra money coming in to help create wonderful youth volunteering opportunities that would otherwise not have existed.

Andrew MacKay: I wish the Minister well in coping with the members of the west midlands mafia on either side of him. I put it to him that, at this time of economic downturn, we have never needed the voluntary sector more. There will be huge responsibilities on his and his colleagues' shoulders to deliver on promises that were not properly fulfilled by their predecessors.

Kevin Brennan: The right hon. Gentleman is a former member of the west midlands mafia, having represented the constituency of my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will take forward my role as Minister with responsibility for the third sector very much as the Prime Minister asked that I should—as a champion for the third sector in Government. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the £450,000 of funding to the Berkshire Association of Clubs for Young People for a v involved team in his area, delivering wonderful youth opportunities for volunteers in Bracknell.

Gregory Campbell: What steps can the Minister undertake, in association with his ministerial colleagues, to ensure that all those involved in voluntary work right across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, can play a more significant role in the run-up to both the Commonwealth games and the Olympic games?

Kevin Brennan: Clearly, the Olympic games provide a wonderful opportunity for volunteers across the United Kingdom. The office of the third sector is working within the Cabinet Office to ensure that there is a real legacy of increased civic participation as a result of the 2012 games. We want to enable third sector organisations to make the most of the opportunity of the Olympics to increase volunteering and we will ensure that individuals will have easy access to the increased number of volunteering opportunities that will become available in the run-up to the Olympic games.

Mark Durkan: Given that the Government now enjoy new influence on the banking sector, will my hon. Friend work to ensure that the banks show greater understanding for, and consideration of, the needs and working circumstances of the voluntary sector as it copes with a difficult fundraising cycle and the complexities of funding rounds? Banks are not always there to support that sector positively. Will the Government use their new influence to achieve a better result?

Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), who, as the Celtic mafia, have given me welcome relief from the west midlands mafia during this Question Time. My answer to my hon. Friend is "very much so", and I am prepared to look, with him, at the issue that he raises.

David Burrowes: Will the Minister ensure that funding continues for organisations that recruit volunteers, such as Chance UK? I spent a week volunteering at that organisation last month. Will the Minister commend its work in recruiting volunteers to mentor the most vulnerable five to 11-year-olds and raise their aspirations and behaviour? That work is so needed, particularly in respect of role models in our communities.

Kevin Brennan: There is a social inclusion taskforce project in that very area. The role of mentoring is important. From my previous posting at the Department for Children, Schools and Families, I know that it spent a lot of money, working in conjunction with the office of the third sector, to promote volunteering in the form of mentoring, particularly for young people. I commend that work.

Third Sector

Christine Russell: What research his Department has commissioned to underpin the development of its policies relating to the third sector in the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

Kevin Brennan: The office of the third sector recently commissioned the largest ever survey of the sector, reaching more than 104,000 third sector organisations. It conducts additional research on issues including social enterprise, consultation, volunteering and charitable giving. It is also laying the foundation for future third sector research by investing £5.7 million in two third sector research centres with the Economic and Social Research Council.

Christine Russell: I welcome that response from the new Minister and wish him well in his new job. He was an excellent Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families and I am sure that he will continue the good work at the Cabinet Office.
	Not only the smaller charities and voluntary organisations help groups and people in our society now; many larger organisations are delivering front-line public services. However, in many of our towns and cities, charities, voluntary organisations and community groups are hampered in the development of their work by inadequate and inaccessible premises. As the Minister develops policies for the third sector in the next two or three years, will he consider that issue and the funding involved?

Kevin Brennan: Yes, I will do that. As my hon. Friend will know, helping third sector organisations to take over former local authority premises has been one of this Department's large programmes, and it will continue to be so.

Simon Burns: Have the Government commissioned any research in the past two years that will not only underpin their policies but assist the third sector by identifying all those areas across Government Departments where the third sector can apply for grant, and would they publish that work to assist the third sector in knowing where it can go to seek funding?

Kevin Brennan: We are doing a great deal of that work. In fact, we are following four different research strands. We are carrying out the largest ever third sector survey, this month we will open the third sector research centre, we are supporting the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy, and we are commissioning rigorous evaluation of the work that we are undertaking. I am happy to talk further with the hon. Gentleman about those issues.

Social Inclusion

James Gray: What work programme has been put in place for the social exclusion taskforce for the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: The principal focus of the taskforce's work is in ensuring delivery of the public service agreement that we have agreed on excluded adults. There will also be scope for a number of additional projects, which will be announced shortly.

James Gray: The Secretary of State has recognised the work of the social exclusion taskforce, but does he recognise the following words:
	"despite our successes, it is actually getting harder for people to escape poverty...In fact, it's currently harder to escape the shackles of a poor upbringing in Britain than anywhere else in Europe"?
	Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the Secretary of State for Health?

Liam Byrne: I think that my right hon. Friend would agree with me that what is important over the next year is not only that the Government take action such as the action announced today to stabilise the banking system but that we do everything possible to help families and businesses through these more difficult economic times. Labour Members are determined to ensure that we come through the next year not only stronger as a country but as one nation, leaving nobody—no community and no business—behind. I hope that that ambition is shared in all parts of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Robert Goodwill: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 October.

Gordon Brown: Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will want to pay tribute to all the servicemen who have died in the summer months in Afghanistan and, in doing so, I send our profound condolences to their families and friends: Warrant Officer Class 2 Gary O'Donnell, Sergeant Jonathan Mathews, Corporals Jason Barnes and Barry Dempsey, Lance Corporals Kenneth Rowe and Nicky Mason, Private Peter Cowton, Private Jason Rawstron, Signaller Wayne Bland and Ranger Justin Cupples. We owe them, and all those who have lost their lives in conflict, a huge debt of gratitude. Like many Members, I have recently visited Afghanistan, and I have seen at first hand the superb job that our armed forces are doing. I believe that I can speak for the whole House in sending the full and unwavering support of this House for the great efforts of our armed forces.
	This morning I had meetings with Ministers. I also talked to Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Berlusconi about the economic situation. I think that the House will want to know that the Governor of the Bank of England has just announced an immediate 0.5 per cent. cut in interest rates. He has done so in a co-ordinated action that is happening around the world, in which the US Fed has cut interest rates by 0.5 per cent. and the European Central Bank by 0.5 per cent. The Swiss, the Swedes and other members of the G10 have all cut interest rates, showing that global problems are best dealt with by global action.

Robert Goodwill: I am sure that the whole House shares the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister with regard to the fallen.
	Does the Prime Minister agree with the International Monetary Fund that the British economy will shrink next year?

Gordon Brown: Every economy is facing problems, and I do not want to make predictions about the future. We are in very difficult times. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will see, and the whole House will understand, the strength of the action that we have taken today. We have produced additional liquidity in the system of up to £200 billion. We have said that we are prepared to buy shares in our banks and recapitalise our banks to the tune of £50 billion. We have also done something that other countries will, I believe, follow very soon by providing medium-term financing of up to £250 billion, guaranteed by the Treasury. By taking co-ordinated action as a whole and leading the world in doing so, I believe that we can get our banking system on to a sound footing, and that is the key to the future. To have that combined with the macro-economic action—a cut in interest rates—is an important message that is being sent round the world: that we will do everything in our power to ensure that our economy moves forward.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the fat cats of the City of London will not be allowed to line their pockets on the backs of the profound concerns of tens of millions of our fellow citizens? Will he assert that the jobs, homes, small businesses, savings and pensions of those fellow citizens of ours are the profound, top concern of this Government?

Gordon Brown: I was pleased to visit the constituency of my right hon. Friend when I opened a school only a few weeks ago, and we will do everything in our power to maintain our public services, to increase jobs in our economy and to protect the savings and deposits of the citizens of this country. I want to reassure people that everything that can be done will be done to ensure a flow of finance for mortgages and small businesses, despite the toughness of these times. I also say to him that the conditions we will lay down for support to banks in this country include executive performance and the way in which it is remunerated, and we will build on the Financial Services Authority's work to ensure that excessive risk taking is not rewarded but punished.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to those servicemen who have lost their lives in Afghanistan since the House last met? Like the Prime Minister, I have been recently to Helmand, and I have seen for myself the courage, professionalism and dedication of people working in incredibly difficult conditions, and we owe each and every one of the fallen a huge debt of gratitude.
	Right across the country, people are worried about their savings, their pensions and their mortgages. That is why I said last week that if the Government needed to take major steps to secure the banking system, they would have our support. Does the Prime Minister agree that the message should go out loud and clear from this House that in a free enterprise economy, banks play such an important role for everyone—home owners, businesses and individuals with savings—that the banking system cannot be allowed to fail?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the Leader of the Opposition's support for the action that we are taking. I hope that we can proceed on the basis that there will be all-party support for the actions taken today and those taken on future days.
	I believe that the scheme we put forward, which is a stability and restructuring programme, is not simply about new capital for the banks. It is increasing liquidity into the system so that there is overnight and short-term lending available for the banks. It is dealing with what is perhaps the bigger problem at the moment, which is medium-term funding that small businesses in our country need, as everyone recognises, to get funding. At the same time, mortgage holders and prospective home owners need to know that the market can resume. The absence of medium-term funding of loans over six months, a year, two years or three years has hindered the market, which is indeed frozen up in those areas. We are guaranteeing £250 billion at commercial rates, but we will do the job that the banks usually do, and should be doing in normal circumstances, by providing the guarantee that that system will work forward. In addition, the cut in interest rates will assure people that all action is being taken in the economy so that we can help businesses move forward.
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support. I say to him that the measures we took this morning are far more comprehensive and wider than those speculated about in the press, and we are showing that we will do everything in our power to maintain the stability of the economy in the interest of every single British person.

David Cameron: Given, as the Prime Minister says, that we are trying to save the banking system not as an end in itself, but to save the wider economy, would he agree that the real test of success of these measures is not just, as he said, whether banks starting to lend to each other, but whether small business can get loans again and whether home owners can get mortgages again? Are they not the real tests that need to be met? Can he explain how he will measure whether they are met?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to say, in addition, what we are doing to help small businesses. The key issues for small and medium-sized enterprises are cash flow, and, to some extent, access to finance, as I have just said. They need to be helped through this critical period. Late payment problems, which have intensified, with all firms on average lengthening the time it takes to pay their suppliers, including SMEs, go beyond agreed terms. The Government can ease the situation, and we will help cash flow through prompt payment. The Government have already agreed to move their procurement rules from payments within 30 days to a commitment to pay as soon as possible. In the current climate, we need to go further, with a harder target. We will therefore aim to make SME payments within 10 days. The Government will pick up the cost of that, but it is a small price for greatly increasing cash flow associated with £8 billion of contracts for SMEs.
	As I announced last weekend, we propose that the European Investment Bank increase its loans worth up to £4 billion to United Kingdom banks for use by small and medium-sized enterprises. We are now pressing for further additional funding to be advanced, and for UK banks to be able to ensure that they take up the full funding available for SMEs. The Government will, of course, review the impact of any regulatory measures already agreed, but let me make it clear that we are doing, and will do, everything we can to assist SMEs throughout this period. Our restructuring of the banks is designed to ensure that, although it is difficult to achieve, credit lines can remain open to SMEs on a commercial basis. We will not accept that banks should cull their credit lines to eliminate their own exposure to risk, so we will do everything we can to help the 4 million small businesses of this country.

David Cameron: Taxpayers are making an enormous investment and potentially have a huge liability. They want their interests to be protected. That should mean no more irresponsible behaviour, no more inappropriate dividend policies and no more indefensible bonus packages. Will the Prime Minister confirm that those will be conditions of the agreement for getting taxpayers' cash? Crucially, how will the conditions be enforced once everyone has signed up?

Gordon Brown: Again, I am grateful for the chance to explain how we will move forward the proposal that the Chancellor announced this morning. On the remuneration packages available to executives, it will be a condition of the capitalisation of banks that they accept new conditions attached to executive remuneration. We are in discussion, on a case-by-case basis, with the banks that want to take up the scheme about the level of executive remuneration, especially the bonus system that has caused so much difficulty.
	Our aim is to support and reward work, enterprise and responsible risk taking, but not irresponsible and excessive risk taking, which has caused so much damage. The Financial Services Authority— [Interruption.] I was asked a question, so I think I should have the chance to answer. The Financial Services Authority will soon publish a consultative document about the danger to company balance sheets if, by excessive risk taking, some of their executives put those balance sheets and companies at risk. That will form part of its estimate of what capital those companies need.
	It is not only a question of the individual banks with which we are dealing having to accept new conditions—there are strings attached and conditions must be met—but throughout the system, the FSA will propose a new way of dealing with executive remuneration, especially bonuses, which will allow it to regulate according to the capital requirements of a company that takes excessive risk.

David Cameron: May I ask a question that follows directly from the answer that the Prime Minister just gave? The banks that are most reliant on the scheme are those that have taken the greatest risks and, in some cases, behaved irresponsibly. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that, in those banks, there will be no bonuses for senior executives this year?

Gordon Brown: I think that we must get both sides of the matter right. Early on, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want any bank to fail, and we will take all the necessary action to ensure that banks are stabilised and can continue, and resume their normal process of lending. At the same time, we will insist in the conditions on which we issue shares that executive remuneration is as we want: based on responsibility, hard work, effort and enterprise. However, that will be part of the negotiations that we will hold. I think it is right to hold those on a one-to-one basis between the Government and the companies. Of course, those matters will be made public because that is what companies are required to do.

David Cameron: No one wants banks to fail, but also no one wants rewards for failure. Taxpayers now have an investment, so taxpayers have an interest, and they will rightly be infuriated if they see their hard-earned money going in bonuses that are rewards for failure. The other thing that the taxpayer will expect is that everything possible will be done to improve the regulatory system. One of the problems is that there is no one in the system who is there to take an overall view of indebtedness in the economy. Will the Prime Minister look with a genuinely open mind at restoring the role of the Bank of the England—the role that it had for decades—of calling time on debt levels in the economy? The regulatory system needs not just the right rules, but strong institutions. Should not the Bank of England be restored to its proper role in this regard, so that this never happens again?

Gordon Brown: Of course under the new legislation, for which I believe there is now all-party support, the Bank of England will have a statutory role in the supervision of the system. However, I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that when we came in in 1997, there were seven or eight separate regulators all involved in the system. We co-ordinated that within the Financial Services Authority and we led the world in that way.
	As for bonuses, the FSA will be responsible for issuing rules about capital adequacy to firms. It will take into account whether firms are taking excessive risk by rewarding people on the basis of short-term gains, not long-term success. So when the right hon. Gentleman asks what will be done, the answer is that on a case-by-case basis where we capitalise the banks, we will lay down conditions. As for other companies and the rest of the system, the FSA will now be in a position to regulate the capital requirements of firms according to the risk taking that is involved.
	I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about what he thinks about the irresponsibility of people in the City and some of the adjectives that have been used, but I have to remind him of what he said on the "Andrew Marr Show":
	"What you won't hear from me this week is sort of easy, cheap lines...beating up...the market system, bashing...financiers."

Gavin Strang: Now that the Government have brought forward such a bold scheme of support for the banks, does the country not have the right to expect the bankers to show a bit of courage and resume normal lending among themselves and to the wider community?

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we are making possible to happen today is for that resumption of lending to take place. We are providing a guarantee for medium-term funding. I am thinking of the small business that is looking for funds for investment or the small firm with an overdraft that wants the help that a bank can usually give. I am thinking of the mortgage holder who wants to buy the next home or the first-time buyer. That is the cash that can be provided by a good banking system. To have it on a sound footing is an essential element of the programme, but to resume the medium-term funding is one of the least publicised elements of the programme that we have announced today. Not only will we do this in Britain—the £250 billion guarantee—but I have talked to my European colleagues over the past few days and I have hopes that this can become a wider scheme that other countries will take up. I hope that we will show that we have led the world in changing the terms and conditions on which we can help to renew the flow of money in the system.

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the families and friends of those brave British servicemen who lost their lives during the summer recess in Afghanistan.
	This is indeed a day of reckoning for the British economy. It is also a test for this House. We must show the British public that we can work together to halt the downward spiral in the British economy. That is why, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, I can confirm that we wholeheartedly support the Government package. When a ship is sinking, we send out the lifeboats. We do not argue about who has steered it into an iceberg—that is a debate for another day.
	This is a national response to what the Prime Minister has rightly called a global crisis, so we need global responses, too. Will he give the House a bit more detail on exactly what he is doing to ensure that the European Union finally acts together? Will he and the Chancellor press the IMF later this week to provide support to Governments, such as Iceland's, who are overwhelmed by the crisis and unable to cover the liabilities of their banks on their own?

Gordon Brown: Once again, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's question, because it allows me to explain, if he will allow me to do so, what we are doing in concert with our European partners and what we want to see happen at a global level.
	First, the co-ordinated cut in interest rates is an important signal that the world will come together to deal with this economic problem. I believe that it has come at the right time to show that the action that we are taking, the action that the Americans are taking and the action taken in other countries in Europe is action that is designed to solve together the problem we face.
	The problem is that the banking system has been overwhelmed by the fall-out from the sub-prime market in the United States and the bad assets that have been taken by many banks. Our method of doing this is to strengthen the banks in our country. In America, they are trying to move those bad assets into a Government fund. We feel that what we are doing is best for the banking system here, so while action is co-ordinated, each country will choose different things to do.
	On Friday, the G7 will meet and agree co-ordinated action on transparency, disclosure and how we deal with accounting standards. I believe that the changes such as the new colleges of supervisors that will regulate multinational companies across frontiers should come in immediately and be set up before the end of the year. There will be a meeting of the IMF on Saturday, which I believe will agree the same principles. Having talked to President Bush yesterday, I think that we will have an international leaders meeting soon to look at what we can do together.
	We need to have responsibility and integrity at the heart of the global financial system. We need a global early-warning system and co-operation among regulators that, to be frank, we in Britain have tried for for years, but have not been able to persuade other countries to support. We will continue to see co-ordinated action on economic policy.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful for the Prime Minister's reply. I am sure that he will agree that although this package is hugely important, it is only one part of the jigsaw that needs to be put together to get the economy back on track. He has said, rightly, that this is a time for new thinking, not for old dogma, so does he recognise that struggling families facing huge bills need more money in their pockets now? Will he act to close the numerous loopholes in the tax system, which benefit only the very wealthy, and use that money to cut taxes for people on low and middle incomes, who need that money the most?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, wherever there are loopholes in the tax system we will act to close them, and have done so over the last nine years. He asks about money going to hard-working families in this country to help them through these difficulties. Every family—in fact, 22 million families, basic-rate taxpayers—will receive £120 as a result of the decisions made by the House to give a tax cut. Equally, at the same time, as he knows, pensioners will receive £250 in the next few weeks for their winter fuel. Pensioners over 80 will receive £400 to help with their fuel bills. We have also extended help to low-income families by increasing the social tariff numbers to half a million and more. We are trying to do more in that area. We are trying to deal with the unacceptable problems raised by pre-payment meters. We will legislate if necessary to stop the practice of discriminating against those on pre-payment meters and we will continue to do everything we can to help the hard-working families of this country.

Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister agree that the best way for the House to show its admiration for our troops in Afghanistan would be to investigate an alternative peace strategy that sought to consolidate the gains already made, end the bloodshed and bring stability to Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in one thing: this is not a military strategy alone. I applaud the professionalism, dedication and ingenuity in the face of huge difficulties displayed by our British armed forces—more than 8,000 men and women who are in Afghanistan at the moment. As everybody knows, they face a new problem—not front-on combat with the Taliban, but guerrilla warfare, roadside bombs, devices such as car explosives and suicide bombings. We have had to restructure and reconfigure our troops to deal with that problem.
	In addition, we are training the Afghan army to do its own job for itself—80,000 people are being trained. The Afghan police force is being trained, which is a more difficult task. Corruption has to be avoided so that it can also provide a policing role. I may say also that in what we have done in increasing the facilities available—for example, the dam in Afghanistan—we are trying to help to develop the economy of Afghanistan. We are trying to give people education and health, and all the opportunities that a civilised society should give. However, let us remember this: some criticise the effort in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan is now a democracy and millions of children, including 2 million girls who never went to school, are now going to school.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Prime Minister share my disgust that some banks are charging small businesses more than 15 per cent. interest on their overdrafts?

Gordon Brown: That is exactly the problem that we are considering at the moment. Small businesses need the lifeline of banks that are able to service them. We are examining how we can use money from the European Investment Bank, the small firms loan guarantee scheme, and money that regional development agencies have to help businesses in their community, to get the banks to be better intermediaries to finance loans for small businesses at affordable rates. We have been discussing in detail with our European partners how a £25 billion scheme can be introduced. We are also considering how the small firms loan guarantee scheme can be improved. The situation is difficult and tough. Banks have increased the margins that they charge, and have responded to their difficulties by making it harder for small businesses. We should accept that that problem must be dealt with. But we must create a means by which the banks can be better intermediaries in getting funds to the 4 million small businesses in our country who deserve, and will have, our support.

Liz Blackman: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on this bold, comprehensive financial package, especially as it has been struck voluntarily with the banks and will therefore not be delayed by legislation. Can he tell the House how quickly he thinks that the major banks will take up the offer on the table?

Gordon Brown: One of the reasons that the programme had to be completed in full before it was announced was that we had been in detailed discussions with the major banks. We have an agreement in practice that they will all join the scheme. The detailed working out of the scheme, through the conditions that we are attaching, will happen in the next few days. We must accept that this is a long haul for every economy of the world. But I hope that in a reasonable time we can get the funds from the banks into the small businesses, and resume the mortgage lending that is so essential, especially for young people looking for their first home.

Stephen Hammond: When the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he often used the occasion of the IMF forecast to revise his public borrowing figures. In the light of today's revised IMF forecast, will he revise those public borrowing figures today?

Gordon Brown: If I may say so, public borrowing forecasts have always been revised in the pre-Budget report and in the Budget. I have never done that at the IMF, although sometimes at the IMF I have said what I think the growth pattern of the economy will be.

Chris McCafferty: In the light of today's historic and dynamic intervention, does my right hon. Friend consider that the proposed takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB will still proceed? If so, will he reassure my constituents in the Calder Valley, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan), many of whom are employed by HBOS in Halifax, that he will do everything that he can to ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies in the next three years?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend takes a huge interest in those matters, and I too am concerned with the interests of her constituents and those employed by HBOS and Lloyds TSB in Yorkshire and Humberside. When we changed the competition rules to make possible the takeover by Lloyds TSB of HBOS, the alternative that we faced—that a major bank that served a large part of our community would not be able to survive—was a great deal worse. We took the right action to make sure that Lloyds TSB could take over Halifax Bank of Scotland, with the company wishing to expand over time its business in banking, servicing the people not just of Yorkshire and Humberside but the rest of the United Kingdom. I will look at the matter carefully, and would be happy to meet her to discuss the conditions of employment that she finds. With Bradford & Bingley in the same area, I realise that people face difficulties. Our determination, however, is to stand on the side of those people who are worried about their jobs, and to help them through this difficult period.

Andrew MacKay: Following the Prime Minister's pronouncement in New York last week, will he now tell us when the age of irresponsibility began?

Chris Ruane: In 1979!

Gordon Brown: I am tempted to use my experience of studying history to go back quite a long time to explain what has happened.
	I was talking about irresponsibility in the financial markets. Now everyone agrees about irresponsibility in the financial markets, but let me say, because I think it should be clear to the people of this country, that the dividing line here is not between business and being anti-business, or between market and being anti-market. The dividing line that we have is between rewarding hard work, effort and responsibility—rewarding enterprise—and rewarding excessive risk-taking or irresponsible risk-taking.  [Interruption.] The all-party consensus seems to have dissipated a little.
	I personally think that the whole country will agree that that is the right thing. Let us reward work, let us reward effort, let us reward enterprise, let us reward responsible risk taking; but let us deal with the problem—and sort it out once and for all—of excessive and irresponsible risk taking.

Nigel Griffiths: When the Prime Minister gave badges of honour to the women and male Spitfire pilots and others in the Air Transport Auxiliary, did he convey the great pride that the whole House shows in them, and the tremendous thanks of the whole country for their sterling service during our darkest hour?

Gordon Brown: I had the privilege, over the summer, of meeting many of the women Spitfire pilots, and the men and women of the Air Transport Auxiliary and I was able to congratulate people who had come from all over the country, and who had given a huge service to the country. Their contribution was in delivering aircraft between factories and airfields during the second world war. It is right, even 60 years after the war, that the nation has now determined that it will recognise the contribution of some very brave and courageous women and what they did.

Mark Harper: I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister's answer when he said that he often used the occasion of the IMF forecast to publish new growth forecasts. I repeat the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill): can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government agree with the IMF that next year the economy willshrink?

Gordon Brown: I said that I often forecast the path along which the economy will move forward. We publish— [Interruption.] I think the hon. Gentleman has been in the House for long enough to know that it is right for a Government to publish the exact figures of its forecasts at the time of a Budget and pre-Budget report. Anything else leads to uncertainty; and, if I may say so, the hon. Gentleman betrays some immaturity in expecting that we will give a running commentary on the economy.

Financial Stability

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the proposals that I announced this morning. I hope the House will understand that it was necessary for me to issue a statement this morning ahead of the opening of the markets, for very obvious reasons. Before I return to that, let me tell the House that the announcement made by the Bank of England half an hour ago of its intention to cut interest rates by half a per cent. to 4½ per cent. will help our objectives of maintaining stability and rebuilding the banking system.
	As I said in my statement to the House on Monday, the disruption in the global financial markets has intensified over the last few days and weeks. I also said that the Government were ready, with the resources and the commitment, to do whatever was necessary—in terms of liquidity and capital—to maintain stability in the banking system. That is why today I put forward measures designed to restore confidence in the banking system and to put banks on a stronger footing.
	There are three strands to what I have outlined today: first, to provide sufficient liquidity now; secondly, to make available new capital to UK banks and building societies to strengthen their resources and to restructure their finances, while maintaining their support for the real economy; and thirdly to ensure that the banking system has the funds necessary to maintain lending in the medium term. My proposals today, as well as supporting stability in the financial system, will protect depositors, safeguard the interests of taxpayers and play an important part in the international response to this global crisis. That, in turn, should help people and businesses, as well as support the economy in these extraordinary times.
	Let me set out for the House further details and the purpose of our measures. First, the Government and the Governor of the Bank of England will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the banking system has sufficient funds, or liquidity, to function properly. That crucial measure is needed to allow money to flow through the banking system.
	To that end, I have agreed further immediate liquidity measures with the Governor. Until markets stabilise, the Bank of England will extend and widen its injections of funds into the system to build on the £40 billion that it put in yesterday. The Bank of England will continue to lend those funds to banks, in both sterling and dollars, by taking a wider range of security in exchange, and today I have increased the amount available to the Bank of England to lend through the special liquidity scheme to a total of at least £200 billion.
	By injecting that short-term funding into the system, the banks will be better able to conduct their daily business with their customers. Importantly, that form of funding, which allows banks to swap assets for Government securities, keeps the risk of losses with the banks and not the taxpayer. The Bank of England will next week bring forward its plans for a permanent regime underpinning banking system liquidity, including a discount window facility.
	The second step is to help the banking system to become stronger, so that it can better deal with the current turmoil in global financial markets. Banks will do that by raising the level of capital that they hold.
	A healthy banking system is the cornerstone of the economy. Strong banks underpin a strong economy, but many banks, all over the world, do not have sufficient capital and banks need adequate capital, so that they can keep on lending to people. That is why today the Government have established a bank recapitalisation fund to allow UK banks to increase their capital position. The eight major UK banks have today announced that, in aggregate, they plan to increase their capital by £25 billion. Banks can raise that capital in the open market, in the usual way, or they can raise it through the newly created bank recapitalisation fund. Other eligible banks and building societies can also take part.
	Through the fund, the Government stand ready to buy preference shares in the participating banks. Preference shares rank above the stock of ordinary shareholders. The Government will receive a fixed regular payment for holding those shares and will get better protection against any future losses. In addition to that, the fund will be ready to provide at least another £25 billion of capital to strengthen the balance sheets of any interested bank. The taxpayer, therefore, will be fully rewarded for that investment.
	Additionally, the Government are also prepared to consider standing behind the issuance of new shares by any bank taking part in the recapitalisation fund. The fund will cover a wide range of financial institutions, from UK-based multinational banks to high street branches and regional building societies. Through those measures, UK banks will be strengthened to above the standards required by international conventions. It will put the banks on a stronger footing, making them better able to deal with future shocks and more willing to lend to people, families and businesses.
	That brings me to the third element of the Government's proposal today. The root cause of today's problems is that, because banks all over the world are worried about each other's positions, medium-term lending between them has frozen up. Many banks have simply lost confidence in each other. If banks do not lend to each other, they will also not lend to people and businesses up and down the country.
	To free up bank lending and reduce dependence on overnight lending, I want to remove one of the key barriers by offering a temporary underwriting for any eligible new debt issued by banks. That means that participating banks can start having confidence in each other again, because they will know that the Government are standing firmly behind them when they want to issue new debt. That guarantee aims to unblock the system, so that banks can go about their business of lending to people and businesses, and because it will be priced on commercial terms, taxpayers will be rewarded for the risk that they take on. The guarantee is expected to cover an amount of around £250 billion but we will keep this total under review. Over time the cost of lending between banks should fall, reducing the need for such a guarantee.
	The freeze in global markets is a problem for all countries. Yesterday, at the meeting of European Finance Ministers, we agreed to work together to rebuild confidence in the banking system. I believe that the measures that I am announcing today are an important part of that. I shall be having further discussions with Finance Ministers, and when I go to Washington tomorrow I will be discussing with my colleagues there the extension of these proposals, as well as continuing our work towards strengthening the system of international supervision. The Prime Minister, as he has just said in Prime Minister's questions, has agreed with other major countries on the need for a meeting of Heads of Government.
	I believe that these measures are essential for the economy, but let me deal with the implications for the Government and, of course, for the taxpayer of those new proposals as well as others announced on previous occasions. When we nationalised Northern Rock, the Government had lent it around £30 billion. It has now paid back more than half of that ahead of schedule. When we nationalised parts of Bradford & Bingley, it was clear that we would run off its assets in an orderly way and get back as much as possible of the money that we provided to cover depositors. The injections of liquidity through the special liquidity scheme to which I have just referred simply allow banks to swap securities with the Bank of England, so the risk remains with the banks and not the taxpayer; in other words, we get our money back.
	For all the operations of the recapitalisation fund announced today, we will be charging the banks on full commercial terms. We will hold a capital stake as part of the investment and that will include a payment of dividends on shares and the appropriate charges for the use of the guarantee ensuring that the taxpayer is appropriately rewarded. The implications for the public finances as a result of today's announcements will be exceptional and mostly temporary and, in fact, will protect taxpayers by ensuring stability in the economy now.
	In return for this offer to invest in banks I will need to be satisfied that the banks have the appropriate policies in place: policies to prevent the irresponsible behaviour that we have seen in some parts of the global banking system. The public are entitled to share in the upside of these proposals, so in return for our support, we will be looking at executive pay, dividend payments and lending practices, particularly to home owners and small and medium-sized enterprises.
	I want to say something about the three Icelandic banks; Landsbanki, its UK subsidiary, Heritable, and Kaupthing, which was put into liquidation within the last hour. The Financial Services Authority decided yesterday that Heritable could not continue to meet its obligations and today it has taken exactly the same decision for Kaupthing. I have therefore used the special powers that I have under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act to transfer most of their retail deposits to ING, the Dutch bank, which is working to secure business as usual for its customers to protect its savers' money. The rest of those Icelandic businesses have been put into administration.
	On icesave, we are expecting the Icelandic authorities to put Landsbanki, which owns icesave, into insolvency. Despite the fact that this is a branch of an Icelandic bank, I have in the exceptional circumstances that we see today guaranteed that no depositor loses any money as a result of the closure of icesave and I am taking steps today to freeze the assets of Landsbanki in the UK until the position in Iceland becomes clearer.
	Those actions demonstrate my strong commitment to protect UK retail depositors in these exceptional times. The purpose of these proposals is to get lending started again and to get the economy moving forward. It is one of a number of measures that we are taking to deal with specific cases as well as providing general support. We are ready to do more whenever it is necessary. Failure to act would have meant far greater risks to the economy and to the public finances in the future. I have made it clear that we will do whatever it takes to maintain stability, to protect savers and to rebuild the confidence to help businesses, people and the wider economy. I commend this statement to the House.

George Osborne: I am grateful to the Chancellor not just for his statement, but for discussing it with me this morning.
	This has, of course, been another day of turmoil on the financial markets, and people watching us remain desperately anxious about their savings, their mortgages and their future jobs. That is why we continue to offer our constructive support for the package announced today, including the important steps on interbank lending that the Prime Minister mentioned at Prime Minister's questions. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said, the real test of the success of this rescue will be if credit starts flowing again through the veins of the economy. We want to see banks not just lending to banks again, but also lending again to the small businesses that need a loan extension and to the families who are trying to get a remortgage.
	So may I ask the Chancellor the following specific questions? He said in his statement that he will require a full commitment to lending to small businesses and home owners. How exactly will that commitment be enforced? Does he have a commitment that the banks, for example, will not be charging small businesses 15 per cent. interest rates of the kind that we described on Monday? Does he have a commitment that the banks will pass on to customers the kind of rate cuts that the Bank of England has just announced today—and, perhaps, will also announce in the future? May I press him again on a question that my right hon. Friend asked of the Prime Minister? Does the Chancellor have a commitment that those banks that are most in trouble and most in need of taxpayer support will not be paying bonuses this year to their senior executives? The Prime Minister did not answer that question clearly and it would be good to have an answer from the Chancellor; there should not be rewards for failure—no bonuses for those who took their banks to the edge of bankruptcy.  [Interruption.] Labour Members can ask the new Minister appointed in the House of Lords all about bonuses when they leave the Chamber. The Chancellor says that this is all the Financial Services Authority's responsibility, but it is the Chancellor who is ultimately responsible for tax money, and how is he going to enforce these commitments, because while the Government can give their support now and strike a deal now, they will, of course, find it very difficult to withdraw that support once it is offered without risking further crisis, so what are the real sanctions that the FSA or the Treasury have to help small businesses?
	Secondly, may I ask the Chancellor about the concerns of people with savings in Icelandic banks? They will welcome what the Chancellor says, but may I ask for some clarification for all our constituents? He says there will be no depositor losses as a result of the closure of icesave. Does that include—I assume it does—deposits of more than £50,000? Does it also include wholesale deposits, because, as I am sure he knows, many local authorities have large deposits with these Icelandic banks? Are their deposits protected as well? Also, where will this money ultimately come from? The FSA compensation scheme will be under considerable strain after the Bradford & Bingley deal. Is the Chancellor expecting, in the end, the industry to make a contribution? May I also ask whether the Chancellor has other plans for other UK deposits in other foreign banks that may be in difficulty at this current time?
	Thirdly, will the Chancellor be using this moment to start driving through the longer-term changes we need to our system of regulation? There will be plenty of time to assess the mistakes that have been made and how we got into this situation, but one thing is clear: we must ensure that in future it is the banks and their shareholders who set aside capital, not the taxpayer. The Prime Minister talked in Prime Minister's questions about the banking Bill and the Bank of England's role in liquidity supervision, but is he going to consider giving the Bank of England new powers to manage overall debt levels in the economy, with perhaps an open letter system with the FSA?
	Finally, may I also ask the Chancellor about the international front? We welcome the news of co-ordinated cuts in interest rates across the western world. He is, of course, travelling tomorrow to the meetings in the United States. What prospect is there of genuine co-ordination across western Governments on other areas of policy, such as support for financial systems, so that we can perhaps have some common approach to the guarantees that are being offered to different parts of those financial systems? On the broader economy, as we have just heard in questions the International Monetary Fund is now predicting negative growth for the UK, the biggest downgrade it has made of any major economy that it monitors.
	In the Budget, the Chancellor predicted growth this year of 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. next year, and as the Prime Minister very helpfully just confirmed, when he was Chancellor he used the IMF meeting to set out what I think he called a broad pattern of growth, but what I seem to remember being very specific figures—he would often get out his downgrade before the pre-Budget report at the IMF meeting. Will the Chancellor be using this opportunity to predict growth, so that the country is fully prepared and aware of the very difficult economic times that lie ahead?
	This is an extraordinary moment, when the British taxpayer is forced to step in and bail out the banking system, but let us be clear: we do this not to rescue the banks or the bankers, but to rescue the economy and the millions of families who depend on it. That will be the true test of whether today's package succeeds, and we all hope that it does.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am glad that I had the opportunity to speak to him and to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, earlier this morning and to explain what we were doing and why. I also very much welcome the spirit of cross-party co-operation, and I hope that it lasts.
	I shall now deal with the various points that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) raised, beginning with Iceland. This afternoon, we will publish further details about how the financial services compensation scheme intends to proceed. I have to tell the House that getting information out of Iceland is proving to be quite difficult. That country obviously has severe difficulties, and that is why I decided that I had to intervene. It would have been quite wrong to say to people covered by the Icelandic scheme, "Sorry, you've got to go to Reykjavik and try to get your money there." That is especially true when it is not clear to me whether the Icelandic scheme can be funded. So we have taken steps to freeze the assets of the bank involved, and I hope that we will be able to recover some of those assets in order to offset the money that we will have to provide to help people in the meantime.
	The hon. Member for Tatton also asked about regulation. It is important that we learn from what has happened. First and foremost, we need to appreciate that, although it might have been sufficient in days past to allow a country to regulate within its own borders, it is now essential for a country that sees problems occurring within its own borders to discuss them with and report them to other countries. We saw problems in America, when that country was getting into the mire of the sub-prime market, and in the old days, that would have been a problem just for America, but it is now a problem for every country. So I think that the whole culture of and approach to regulation needs to change, and there are obviously developments that we need here—although I am bound to say that no one will convince me that we should go back to the old days when we had nine or 10 regulators in this country who were all tripping over each other. It would also be absolute nonsense to go back to the days of self-regulation. However, I believe that the Bank of England should now have a statutory role in ensuring financial stability—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"]—as I announced in January of this year. I am glad that there is support for that in every part of the House.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the proposals that I announced today. What I have done today is announce the principles that will underpin our approach. As I said, and as the Prime Minister said at Question Time, we will reach individual agreements with the banks concerned. If they choose to use the facilities that we are offering, we shall sit down and discuss the detailed proposals with them.
	I am grateful for the Conservative party's support for our approach to the excesses that we have seen. It is far more interventionist than I had always understood the Conservative position to be, but we must make sure that we go down what is a fine line. We must ensure that the public interest is maintained and yet not get ourselves into a position where we somehow think that we can sit in a boardroom and take all the decisions for everyone. At some point the hon. Member for Tatton came perilously close to suggesting that, but it is important that we make sure that we deal with some of the damaging effects of the bonus system that we have seen over the past few years.
	The final point made by the hon. Gentleman had to do with international co-operation. I believe that such co-operation is more urgent now than it has ever been, and that is why I believe that we should remain fully engaged in the EU, as the obvious place to start is right on our doorstep. I also think that we need to remain engaged and take a lead in making sure that we maintain stability by improving supervision and regulation internationally. That is very much the theme that I shall be pursuing in Washington this weekend.

Stuart Bell: I refer to the point made by the Prime Minister that the media have not yet homed in on the Government's medium-term financial strategy, under which £250 billion is being made available to small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can renew their overdrafts and loans when they mature. That is in addition to the £4 billion from the European Investment Bank and the £200 billion from the Bank of England's window. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have referred to home buyers and small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as to lenders, borrowers and depositors, but not all this country's taxpayers welcome the measures that have been taken today as being in the interests of the wider community of which we are all beneficiaries.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that everyone in the House would acknowledge that all of us—whether individuals or small businesses—depend on an efficient and effective banking system. In many ways, in addition to helping banks recapitalise, the key measure today is the one that we are taking to guarantee lending. Unless banks start lending to each other over a wider period, we will merely see the existing problems continue. That measure is very important but, as my hon. Friend said, it is equally important that we see the benefit of that going to small businesses and individuals.

Vincent Cable: My colleague and party leader has already made it very clear that we support these measures as being in the national interest. They strengthen the banks and protect taxpayers' interests in a very difficult situation. However, the situation is fast moving: I think that the Chancellor is now aware that it has emerged in the past hour or so that eight London councils—and no doubt many others—have large holdings in Landsbanki. That problem will require his immediate attention.
	The key question that I wish to pursue in relation to the Chancellor's statement has to do with how the investment in the banks is to be secured. When the IMF bails out countries, it imposes conditionality. How will the conditionality for the banks be enforced and monitored? How will the Chancellor ensure that the taxpayer's money going into the banks comes out at the other end, so that he is not in effect pushing on a piece of string? What sort of assurance can workers and companies have that, at the end of the month when salaries and bills have to be paid, the money will be there in the banking system?
	Also on conditionality, I have been as stunned as the right hon. Gentleman has been by the sudden conversion of the champions of the bonus culture to advocates of a 1970s-style incomes policy. None the less, the Conservatives are right to say that there must be a fundamental change in banking culture. I hope that that will be carried forward in this programme.
	I welcome very much the decision on interest rates, which is all the more powerful for having been done collectively. It represents a recognition that we are not, as the Chancellor said, simply dealing with difficult times. We are also dealing with different times that require a fundamentally different approach from central banks. The key point is that we are moving on from problems in the financial system to problems in the real economy. Ordinary people are going to ask, "If the banks can be bailed out, why can't we be?" In that context, will the Chancellor speak to the Justice Secretary about introducing new procedures for the courts, to ensure that repossession is the very last resort when people are experiencing serious difficulties with their mortgage payments? That is not the case currently for many of the creditors.
	The Chancellor has been able to find £50 billion for the banks, so will he now ensure that the £8 billion that has been approved already for social housing is used rapidly to acquire the land and property that is becoming available at very big discounts, so that it can be made available for affordable housing? That would save many builders' jobs and prevent the new accumulation of toxic loans in the banking system. I think that we all acknowledge that this is the first and not the last step in what will be a very difficult process of recovery.

Alistair Darling: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I am very glad that he has welcomed the action taken by the Bank of England to cut interest rates to 4½ per cent. I hope that he will recall that, when he pressed me two days ago to intervene and take away the Bank of England's independence, I said that I thought that the remit was adequate to allow it to do what was right—and so it seems to have turned out. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I am sure that the whole House and the whole country will welcome the reduction in interest rates, and I hope that banks will ensure that people benefit from it as soon as they can.
	I agree that one of the reasons why we put in place today's intervention is that we need to be mindful of the fact that if we did nothing, the effects would spread into the wider economy. This measure, and others that we have taken and will take in the future, will try to deal with that. The hon. Gentleman referred to our announcement about housing. He is quite right: I want to see that through.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about agreements following my announcement today. The Government will obviously have to reach an agreement with individual banks, and those discussions need to take place. He asked what teeth there were. May I give him one example? As he knows, banks in the UK are regulated by the FSA. If it imposes a regulatory requirement—for example, following a code on remuneration, rewards or bonuses—the regulated banks have no alternative but to comply. That is the whole point of a regulatory system.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Icelandic banks, and the hon. Member for Tatton, who speaks for the Conservatives, also raised the question of councils. What we can do is make sure that we look after the retail depositors—the ordinary men and women who put in their money, and might not have fully appreciated that Icesave is a branch of a foreign bank and not incorporated in the UK. I understand the position of local authorities, but they are in a slightly different situation, in that they are a more informed investor. However, as I said earlier, the situation is evolving; we are trying to sort the matter out with the Icelandic Government. I have had conversations with Icelandic Ministers—both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister. In addition, one of my ministerial colleagues hopes to speak to the Icelandic Finance Minister again today.
	On the point about the Justice Secretary, I have spoken to my right hon. Friend about the points relating to repossessions—not just today—and I am sure he will pursue the matter.

Michael Meacher: If £250 billion has been pre-emptively committed to securing the banks, for reasons that we all understand, how does my right hon. Friend envisage funding, presumably, stage 2 of his recovery plan—securing the real economy, manufacturing industry and jobs—if in fact a recession has already been set in train? I recognise that, of course, safeguarding the banks must come first, as clearly it must, but what leverage do the Government and taxpayers have to ensure that credit starts to flow freely again to businesses, mortgages and employment if long-term incentives have been given to the banks without—it appears—any enforceable conditions?

Alistair Darling: I am glad that my right hon. Friend agrees that we need to support the banking system. I refer him to what I said in the last few exchanges about how we propose to enter into agreements with the banks concerned. He rightly says that we shall need to take further steps to ensure that we protect the economy and jobs, which is something that I will return to in the pre-Budget report.

Michael Howard: Does the Chancellor accept that yesterday's gyrations in the markets were due in large measure to leaks and briefings from the Government? Is it not the case that such preferential disclosure is both highly improper and probably illegal, so will he invite the Financial Services Authority to carry out an investigation into his Department and No. 10 to identify those responsible for such disclosure, and take all appropriate action in the light of the findings?

Alistair Darling: No, I do not agree with the underlying premise of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. Speculation, especially in relation to things that are highly market-sensitive, is deeply regrettable and it should not happen. I agree with him on that, but I do not agree at all with the other suggestions he was making.

Chris Mullin: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares the joy of the whole House that the shadow Chancellor has managed to wipe that perpetual smirk from his face. May I put it to my right hon. Friend that memories in the City are short? There is a danger—is there not?—that once this crisis has blown over, although it may take some time to do so, old habits will be reverted to. He may recall that in the 1970s the building societies got themselves into similar trouble, although not quite on this scale, and had to be bailed out by the then Labour Government, but before long they were back at it again. What assurance can he give that the measures he takes to deal with the excesses of the past will make sure that they never recur?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend raises a valid point. Memories can be short. In another 15 years, when there is another generation, there is that risk. That is why we have to make sure that our regulatory system is constantly kept up to the mark, to take account of the fact that markets change, practices change and people change. People forget what happened in the past, so it is important that we maintain a collective memory both in the private sector and also, I suspect, in the public sector. It is very important, and we need to make sure that the regulatory system helps us to do that. Companies themselves have a responsibility. The first line of defence against irresponsible risk taking ought to lie in the boardrooms of British companies, and directors of companies should never ever forget that.

George Galloway: When the Liberals sound like Labour and the Conservatives like communists, the kaleidoscope has definitely been shaken—but while the pieces are in flux, why do we not reorder this world? What is so wrong about the taxpayer having a seat in the boardroom? Fifty thousand million pounds will buy a chair in any boardroom in the world. It would be taxation without representation, and will run the risk that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has just adumbrated—that without a Government presence in the boardroom, those habits will soon be reverted to again.
	The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have performed admirably and impressively over the last couple of days, but the real test will be how they respond to the crisis in the real economy. The country will not understand if banks can be bailed out but factories can go to the wall, jobs can be lost and the public can lose their houses.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his unaccustomed support for our position. I shall make the most of it.
	In relation to Government nominees sitting in boardrooms, I never thought that a particularly useful course of action to follow—

George Galloway: Oh yes you did!

Alistair Darling: Oh no I didn't—and now I know who wrote that column in  Private Eye; I always thought it was the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate what he says, but as with so many of the other things he has said, we shall probably have to part company on it.

Mark Durkan: I join other Members in welcoming the Chancellor's statement, the scale of the action the Government have taken and the calibration of the risk involved. The Chancellor said that in return for Government support for the banks, the Government will be looking at executive pay, dividend payments and lending practices. Will they also keep an eye on the banks' investment practices, so that they do not get back into speculating on futures and commodity indices so that they fuel energy and food price rises in ways that we have all suffered from? Can he assure the House that no matter what it takes, this will never turn into the taxpayer being taken for whatever? To help in that regard, will he support the establishment of a special Committee of the House to oversee these exceptional measures—to oversee both how the banks use and respond to them, and the returns that come to the taxpayer?

Alistair Darling: I expect that the Treasury Committee, with good reason, probably believes that is one of the things it is supposed to do. I am sure that our right hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall) will want to reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has just said. However, he makes a fair point. For good and understandable reasons, which I think are shared everywhere in the House, we have had to intervene in these exceptional circumstances, to maintain stability in the banking system. Banks, too, have to remember that they need the public's support. Just as in the good times they go out trying to win customers, I hope they also remember that in more difficult times people will appreciate it if the bank stands by them.

John Greenway: The Chancellor referred to the regulation of the Financial Services Authority. Another feature I should like to remind him about is the requirement for retail banks to abide by the principles of treating customers fairly. He has announced a very welcome cut in interest rates today, and we hope there will be further cuts to come. Surely, any banks helped by this system should treat their customers fairly by ensuring that those interest rate reductions are passed on to home owners and borrowers.

Alistair Darling: I am sure that many, if not most, people in this country agree with those sentiments.

Gordon Prentice: Given that we are compensating people who lost money in the Icelandic banks, does the Chancellor agree with me that it would be fair to look again at the collapse of Equitable Life, which, the parliamentary ombudsman tells us, was a result of a decade of regulatory failure? Would not people who lost money in Equitable Life look askance at people who put their money overseas being compensated when they were not?

Alistair Darling: The reason for my decision in relation to the Icelandic banks is the systemic problems that we now face in the banking industry. The Government will report on Equitable Life shortly, and of course the ombudsman's findings will be taken into account, but we also need to take account of the findings of Lord Penrose, who investigated what happened at Equitable Life at some length and concluded that that company was substantially the author of its own misfortunes. We have a duty to treat policyholders fairly, but, as people have been saying today, we also have a duty to be fair to taxpayers. I will report back to the House as soon as I can.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Chancellor for advance notice of his statement. I very much welcome it because it is systemic and comprehensive, which I had asked for, and because the package as a whole is big enough to be very credible and to deliver confidence and stability. I hope that it does so. I particularly welcome the additional liquidity, and the fact that the Government will stand behind interbank loans.
	The Chancellor said that he would guarantee that no depositor would lose money as a result of the problems at Icesave, and implicit in much of what he has said recently is that no depositor will lose money in the event of the failure of a UK institution. Notwithstanding my welcome for the package, I must ask him whether he stands ready to make his implicit all-deposit guarantees explicit, if required?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on Icesave and what I said about the retail depositors there. I have always been clear that it is very important to protect the interests of savers and depositors and to give people reassurance. I have also said on many occasions that I will never rule anything out. In what we have done so far, approaches have varied from institution to institution. For example, there are legally binding guarantees in place in relation to Northern Rock, and in relation to Bradford & Bingley, we were able to transfer people's savings accounts to Abbey Santander, so they have the backing of one of Europe's biggest banks. We deal with these matters as we think appropriate, but the hon. Gentleman is correct: giving confidence to savers is important.

Joan Ryan: I welcome the package of proposals and the decisive action announced by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor this morning. Hard-working families in my constituency want assurances that the package will afford them greater protection and will not just be a bail-out for the banks. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that in the coming weeks and months, he will continue to communicate to those hard-working families that this Government's priorities are their savings, their pensions, their jobs, their homes and their security?

Alistair Darling: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we should all remember that, at the end of the day, we are here to look after the interests of the people we represent—the people of this country and their businesses. That is what we are here for. We talk about ensuring the stability of the banking system, but we must remember what that actually means to people: if we do not have a banking system that functions properly, the first to be affected are our constituents. We need to make sure that they are protected.

Angela Browning: I welcome what the Chancellor said about Icesave today. A recently retired couple in my constituency sold their home and deposited all they have—the £740,000 proceeds of the house sale—in a six-month bond with Icesave, so they will be particularly pleased. The Chancellor said that he would give more information later today. Will he tell us when depositors will be given clear guidance on how to recover their money—I suspect that they will want to do so as soon as possible—and what sort of time frame he is working to?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Lady asks a perfectly good question. The financial services compensation scheme, which is the lead organisation for dealing with this matter, has already issued guidance and it will issue further guidance as soon as it can. For our part, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), we shall continue to pursue with the Icelandic Government their responsibilities here. When one has responsibilities to people outside one's own country, it is important to stick by them. I understand Iceland's problems, and I hope that the authorities there will work closely with us to resolve them.

Phil Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the financial support for banks that he has announced today is the most comprehensive package in the world, that it puts us ahead of the game, and that it proves that the Government is not in the hands of a novice?

Alistair Darling: The steps that we have taken today are important, but I would say to the House that they are part of a process. What is going on in the world today has had severe implications in almost every corner of the world, and the reasons for these events are sometimes quite complex. Today's steps are important, but I hope that other countries will help. We need to do what we can to help our banks and the banks here in this country, but that support must be replicated in other parts of the world.

John Hemming: The Chancellor will be aware that the tier 1 and tier 2 capital ratios are a better indicator of a bank's stability than its share price. The Financial Services Authority will not publish those capital ratios, although the banks themselves might do so. Will the Chancellor discuss with the FSA the potential for a mechanism whereby ordinary investors can have access to a list of the tier 1 and tier 2 capital ratios, so that we do not have this unhealthy concentration on daily movements in the share prices?

Alistair Darling: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any undertakings on that today, but I will raise the matter with the FSA. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library.

Colin Burgon: Will the Chancellor put my fears to rest? I see the market putting its invisible hand into the pockets of the taxpayer, taking £50 billion away and perhaps putting up two fingers as well. Can we arrest that? Does he agree with me that, in the wider context, what the international crisis represents is the end of neo-liberal ideas about the supremacy of the market, and all that that means in the social and political spheres and every other sphere of our lives?

Alistair Darling: I was going to say, in the nicest possible way, that my hon. Friend sounds like a new Conservative, but I am sure that he does not mean to. I do not agree with everything he says. On the availability of funds, if banks choose to use the recapitalisation fund rather than raise money on the markets, it will be in return for, usually, preference shares, and they will be remunerated in the usual way. As I said, other agreements will go with that.

Andrew Tyrie: I am glad that the Government have finally acted to recapitalise the banks. Of course, the litmus test of whether it works will be whether the interbank market unfreezes. The Chancellor has been closeted with the key banks for the past 24 hours. What estimate have they given him of the likelihood of an early unfreezing of that market— particularly before Christmas, which is one of the deadlines in his press release on the implementation of the scheme?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is a lot of uncertainty in the market at present, but I hope that the measures will help. It will be helpful if our action is complemented by action taken in other parts of the world. One of the reasons why I attach so much importance to the meeting of the European Finance Ministers yesterday and the G7 meetings this weekend is that countries can do a lot themselves. Our interbank rate is lower than the United States' rate at the moment, and obviously we would all like to see it lower still, but it is important that countries—especially the larger developed economies—act together in relation to both the banking system and their wider economies. It is all about restoring and building confidence.

Geoffrey Robinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his comprehensive and substantial set of proposals to restore confidence in the banking system, in which every citizen of this country has such a large vested interest. In particular, I congratulate him on his coup in obtaining a co-ordinated reduction in interest rates on a wide international scale, in which we know he played a leading role. As far as small businesses are concerned, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great measure that he has taken to provide liquidity and working capital requirements, which, as we all know from experience in our constituencies, is now very necessary. Only one point in his statement was not clear: are the shares that he proposes the Treasury have the right to subscribe to intended to be convertible? If not, I urge him to consider making them convertible, as that would ensure a further return to the taxpayer on another front.

Alistair Darling: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, and I agree with him about the decision taken by the Bank of England, which of course is independent of the Government; I attach considerable importance to that. The fact that it and the other central banks of all the major economies took the same decision at the same time sends a very important message. That very much complements what we have announced today.

Hugo Swire: Many smaller companies, particularly those trading in the emerging markets, are reliant on central banks to minimise regulation. There has been evidence recently of some central banks blocking money. Given the importance of cash flow to those smaller companies, will the Chancellor consider extending the export credits guarantee system to cover some of those smaller trading companies?

Alistair Darling: I am not aware of central banks blocking lending. I am aware that some people in this country have experienced difficulty in getting access to funding through our banks, and we are looking into that.  [Interruption.] I think that I can hear the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) say, from a sedentary position, "South America". I would need to check the position there, because I do not want inadvertently to mislead the House on what is happening there. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that when we do have help, whether from the Export Credits Guarantee Department or the European Investment Bank, we must make sure that it feeds through to where it matters.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I, too, welcome the Chancellor's statement, and particularly his point about Northern Rock. Many of my constituents and others in the north-east benefit greatly from the decisive action that the Government took to rescue Northern Rock. However, will he say more about how the package of measures announced today will benefit savers in my constituency, and small and medium-sized companies in my constituency and throughout the north-east?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right to say that the action that we took on Northern Rock is now seen as having been the right thing to do. Clearly, things are still difficult for Northern Rock, as it is for other organisations, and as she well knows, it is also difficult for the people who lost their job with that bank. We are doing everything we can to help. The broader answer to her question is that if we had not done anything, the position would have gradually become more and more difficult. I think that the measures that we announced today will go a long way to help. Obviously, there are a lot of other things going on around the world at the moment, as is shown pretty graphically in the newspapers and on television every day and every night, but I think that the measure is a major step forward. To come back to points that have been raised by Members on both sides of the House, it is important that we try to persuade countries in different parts of the world to deal with the problem. The global economy is a reality now. It brings fantastic opportunities, but there are also some pretty big threats, and we have to deal with them.

Nigel Dodds: Along with everything else, people are worried about their savings, pensions, mortgages and jobs; that is what people are talking about all the time. I welcome what the Chancellor announced today, and we hope that it is successful, but people are also worried about tax. Will he indicate what the overall impact of the financial package will be in the short and, possibly, medium term, on the tax burden of the average hard-working family in this country?

Alistair Darling: As I indicated earlier, a lot of the money that we have been discussing today is money that the Government will fund through borrowing, but the money will come back. In relation to forecasts for the Government's borrowing generally, I will set them out in the pre-Budget report. However, I very much agree that it is important to protect jobs. I am glad that over the past 10 or 11 years we have been able to do a great deal and to achieve so much by working with the political parties in Northern Ireland, especially after the Good Friday agreement. Anyone who lives in, or visits, Northern Ireland will have seen a tremendous difference in the past 10 years. Ensuring that Northern Ireland is a good place to work and live, and ensuring that there are jobs, is very important.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend said about supporting small businesses, and I particularly welcome the aspiration to ensure that the Government pay all bills from small businesses within eight days. However, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will appreciate, many of the companies working for Government are large contractors that have a number of small contractors working for them. If those small contractors are to benefit from this fantastic initiative, which would undoubtedly save them from going bankrupt, my right hon. Friend will have to ensure that the large companies pass on that benefit to the thousands of small-to-medium-sized ones that support them.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. As she rightly says, there are many companies that do not depend on the Government directly, but are sub-contractors. That issue is worth pursuing, and she might want to take it up with the new Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, our noble Friend.

Eric Pickles: The Chancellor rightly wants to protect hard-working taxpayers, but some of those taxpayers also pay council tax. Is he wholly content, given what he has just said, that local authorities are informed investors, and their investments in Iceland will not be covered by the guarantee? Is he aware that we are not talking about trivial sums, but about hundreds of millions of pounds, and about some investments involving payroll? That will create a cash-flow problem. Is he wholly content that the burden should fall on council tax payers?

Alistair Darling: The point that I was making is that there is a distinction between the ordinary man or woman on the street—the retail investor—and others. I am aware of the problem for local authorities, and I will look into it, but my No. 1 concern is to make sure that we protect individual savers, and I am sure that we are at one on that.

Patrick Hall: My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree that the British people have an excellent track record of solidarity when it comes to putting up with difficulties in times of great national need, such as now. The British people will accept their share of the burden, especially if the action taken is seen to be both fair and necessary. Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm that the review of regulation and remuneration in financial institutions being undertaken by Lord Turner will urgently address the need for fairness and transparency, so that in future we can all see that the system is operating properly?

Alistair Darling: I agree that the system needs to be fair and open. My hon. Friend is quite right that people accept the fact that somebody may be well rewarded for improving the performance of a company or working extremely hard. No one wants to stop that, but we do want to stop situations in which, by accident or as an unintended consequence, people are rewarded for doing things that seriously undermine the financial world, and which are bad not only for their company but for everybody else.

George Young: During the recess, the Government waived competition requirements so that Lloyds TSB could proceed with the takeover of HBOS. Ministers subsequently made supportive statements. However, part of the instability in the banking system is due to continuing doubts as to whether the merger will go ahead. Will the Government use any increased leverage in both banks to bring that uncertainty to an end?

Alistair Darling: The decision to merge was taken on a commercial basis by the two companies, Lloyds TSB and HBOS. The Government's role was to waive the competition requirements that would have put an absolute block on it, because we think that a commercial solution would be far better. However, it is a decision for the companies. There are processes that need to be followed; not least, shareholders have to be consulted. That process is following its course now.

David Borrow: My right hon. Friend referred to the effect on the markets earlier this week of weekend speculation about this package. I understand that at the end of last week, the Governor of the Bank of England gave a briefing to the shadow Chancellor. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could confirm whether that briefing was confidential. Is he of the opinion that that confidence has been kept?

Alistair Darling: The Governor of the Bank of England is entitled to meet whomever he thinks appropriate. I am sure that discussions between anyone and the Governor of the Bank of England will, in the normal course of events, remain confidential.

Edward Leigh: Often, the gravest risk to accountability in this House lies when both sides agree; there is sometimes a lack of proper scrutiny. Given that there are now unrivalled risks to taxpayers and that, historically, Governments have a poor record of intervening in the marketplace, what is the Chancellor going to do to protect the interests of the taxpayer and ensure accountability to this House, through the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, for this taxpayers' money?

Alistair Darling: I am not sure whether that was the first discordant voice that we have heard this afternoon, and the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not support what we are doing. If that is the case, I just disagree with him. As the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, he knows perfectly well that there are mechanisms—through that Committee and, of course, through the National Audit Office—for holding Government spending and Governments to account. That is not the only way; there is also the Treasury Committee, and I am accountable to the House, as are other Ministers. There is plenty of scrutiny, and we are very happy to answer questions.

Chris Ruane: Has the speculation by the shadow Chancellor about recapitalisation helped the Chancellor or hindered him in his quest to bring calm and confidence back to the banking sector and the markets?

Alistair Darling: The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is no longer in his place, but I said to him earlier that we all sometimes have to be careful about what we say and that we need to choose our words carefully. The speculation over the weekend was unhelpful, but that is something that we just have to deal with. It is important that during normal exchanges and proper, healthy debates, people's views are properly explored. But whatever happened then, I hope that people will see today's announcement as an opportunity to make a step change and a real difference. That is what I would like to concentrate on.

Bernard Jenkin: May I assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I was briefed by Irwin Stelzer on the need to recapitalise the banks—and I leaked that information?
	Will the Chancellor enlarge on the potential liability to the taxpayer? The £50 billion for the recapitalisation fund will have to be raised by the Government. How will that money be raised? Will the Government issue bonds, simply print the money or sell more of our gold reserves? What will the interest charge be? How will that be paid for, particularly if the preference shares that the Government buy from the banks cannot pay dividends because the banks themselves lack distributable reserves?

Alistair Darling: As I said earlier, the money will be raised through the Government's normal operations when it needs to raise money. I also said that if firms choose to use the recapitalisation fund, the Government will take preference shares. That is pretty straightforward. The taxpayer will therefore be remunerated for those shares; of course, in due course they will be sold.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We come now to the ten-minute rule motion.

European Union (Transparency)

Mark Harper: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a Minister to certify on a Government Bill or a statutory instrument whether or not the Bill or statutory instrument is a result of a decision of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
	Our democratic system is based on the principles of transparency and accountability. I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member of this House would disagree that members of the public should know the origin of the laws that govern them. When my constituents, especially schoolchildren, come to Parliament, I often explain that, as with other Members of Parliament, one of my roles is to scrutinise the legislation brought before this House. Yet there is little clarity—indeed, much confusion—over the extent of the European Union's influence on the legislation brought before this House and the other place.
	I bring in this Bill neither to praise nor criticise the EU per se, but to uphold the principles of openness and transparency on which our democracy is built. For more than a decade now, members of this House and the other place have been asking the Government what proportion of our law has been initiated by the European Union. No definitive number has ever been agreed. In 2006, the then trade Minister, Lord Triesman, estimated that
	"around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from legislation agreed by Ministers in Brussels."
	Other European countries have reached similar conclusions. According to the World Bank Group's review of the Dutch administrative burden in November 2006, EU regulations account for approximately 40 per cent. of all regulations implemented in the Netherlands.
	In the 2003-04 Session of Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked each Department what proportion of its legislation was introduced in response to directives from Brussels. Each Department revealed how differently it was affected, with estimated answers ranging from 0 per cent. to 57 per cent. Clearly, the proportion will vary each year according to the Department. However, Members should not need to ask retrospectively for estimates each year. We are legally bound to introduce the laws made by the European Union; the fact that legislation originated in Europe should therefore be made clear to MPs and members of the public when it is brought before this House.
	Hon. Members will be familiar with the statement of compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 that Ministers must declare on the face of every Bill. In the same way, my Bill would ensure that Ministers declared whether a Bill or statutory instrument was the consequence of EU decision or EU legislation.
	The Bill would be of particular benefit in respect of statutory instruments. So far in this Session of Parliament, more than 2,000 statutory instruments have been laid before the House, yet it is far from clear how many of those are implementing European legislation and how many are home-grown. My Bill will force Ministers to make the information clear, and thereby open up the legislative process. It will enable legislators and the public to understand the extent to which the European Union influences the laws of this country.
	This is an important issue to raise, and not only because transparency is essential to the democratic process; there is considerable debate among the public about Britain's place in the European Union. The EU has been widely blamed—rightly or wrongly—for the introduction of home information packs and the Government's inability to expel criminals from the UK. The list goes on. Indeed, the EU has even been accused of trying to straighten bendy bananas; I shall not pursue that example as I know how sensitive bananas have become at the Foreign Office.
	One of the main problems with the public perception of the EU is that its decisions can appear hidden from public scrutiny and its processes can appear unknown. Turnout at European elections is low, suggesting that the public do not feel involved in the European political process and do not understand how its decisions may affect their lives. If we asked the average person—indeed, the average Member of Parliament—what the four European institutions were, it would not be surprising if we drew a blank. Despite that, there is both great enthusiasm and great scepticism about the role of the European Union.
	The information that the Bill would make available is particularly relevant given that the British Chambers of Commerce, an organisation committed to Britain's membership of the EU, has estimated that legislation sourced in Brussels has placed a £47 billion burden on British businesses. The question of the EU's influence on UK legislation is therefore not simply an academic exercise, but a pressing issue for businesses across the country—particularly at a time when businesses are increasingly hard pressed due to the worsening economic outlook.
	Indeed, a recent report published by the BCC, "The British Regulatory System", highlighted serious shortcomings with the Government's impact assessment of EU legislation. That has left substantial costs to fall on UK business. Commenting on the findings of the report, Sally Low, BCC's director of policy and external affairs, said:
	"If we are to see a better regulatory environment for business then the Government must be engaging earlier in the EU's policy making process. Our report highlights the fact that the Government is only focused on the UK end of EU legislation. There must be a clear linkage between events in Brussels and the UK's own consultation and Impact Assessment process.
	Without timely engagement and substantive consultation the prospects of the UK influencing EU policy to the benefit of British business is severely limited".
	If the full extent of the EU's influence on our legislation were clearer, there would be an even greater imperative to engage fully with the EU's policy making process. This engagement, as the BCC report highlights, has been far too little, far too late from this Government. Indeed, if it were clearer how much legislation already originated from the EU, that might make Ministers a little more cautious before they signed up to still more.
	During the debate on the Lisbon treaty we had some opportunity to debate what role the EU should have. The Bill is not intended to reopen that debate; nor am I suggesting that it will completely enlighten the public about the role of the EU and its impact on the UK. However, it would allow us to have the essential information as to the origin of any new laws being proposed in order that we may subsequently have a more informed debate about Britain's place within the EU. Although I am sure that Members will be aware of my views on this matter, I have come neither to praise the EU nor to bury it. In presenting this Bill, I want to ensure that the EU's role can be better understood and scrutinised.
	When the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who I am pleased to see in his place, was Minister for Europe, he said that to calculate the number of legislative measures enacted each year in the UK directly implementing EU legislation
	"would entail disproportionate cost to research and compile".—[ Official Report, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 755W.]
	Such a statement leads me to question the extent to which the Government and this House are willing to put a price tag on openness and transparency. I understand the complexities of the process of adopting EU legislation, but such complexities should not make the process inaccessible and opaque.
	My Bill enjoys the support of Members drawn from six parties in this House. My proposal is not a revolutionary one—it is common sense. I commend my Bill to the House.

Denis MacShane: I congratulate the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) on making a very moderate speech. I am grateful to him for remembering the modest contribution that I once made many years ago in serving Her Majesty on matters European. However, as so often with the Better Off Out group of the Conservative party, his speech and his Bill hide behind them concepts and problems that need to be unpicked.
	I would have no objection if on the front of every Bill that came before this House there were some symbol or statement of its origin. The vast majority of legislation that has emanated from the EU has done so since the Single European Act was passed in 1986. That has had a huge impact on the legislation of 26 other countries. A great number of different groups in those countries think that the Single European Act, with its rather steam-rollering approach to enforcing free trade, is the child of the noble Baroness Thatcher, so perhaps on the front of every Bill across Europe that is connected with that Act we should have a nice picture of Margaret Thatcher to remind Europeans of where some of the best European legislation comes from.
	The hon. Gentleman made heavy weather of trying to establish what percentage of our laws come from the European Union. If we think honestly about what takes up our time in the House, what worries our constituents and what fills the front pages of our newspapers, we find that very little is connected with the EU. Having already voted to outlaw wife-beating, I hope that later today we will outlaw child-beating. I do not know whether those on the Treasury Bench are of that mind.
	Other issues ahead of us in the next few weeks include stem cell research, time limits on abortion, who might decide on the next police chief of London, identity cards, the length of detention for those suspected of serious terrorist crimes, university admissions and fees, our taxation policy, and what we heard about a moment ago from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the Bill that will follow. Those are all made-in-Britain laws. That is true in France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Ireland, Finland and all members of the European Union. Of course, that which is connected to the Single European Act has to do with Europe.
	In a debate earlier this year, I said that according to the Library—if I have time, I will read out some of its detailed statistics—only 10 per cent. of the laws that impact on us in the United Kingdom, adopted by this House principally through statutory instruments, emanate from the European Union. Then, to my horror, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, leapt to his feet and quoted another right hon. Gentleman who had said that 50 per cent. or more of regulations came from the European Union. That right hon. Gentleman was the Prime Minister. Naturally, as a devoted admirer and fan of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister over decades, I was very concerned thus to be put in my place. I wrote to the Prime Minister to see whether the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks had accurately quoted him. I have a letter here, very kindly addressed, "Dear Denis", and dated 30 April this year, in which he says
	"that—on average—around 9 per cent. of all statutory instruments transpose EC legislation...I believe this is the correct figure."
	In a debate in this House on 3 June, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said that about 80 per cent. of all legislation emanated from the European Union, quoting a German Government source. The BBC and others have been trying to find this German Government source—is it Goethe, Schiller, or Mrs. Merkel?—and find that they cannot. It really is not good enough to come to the House and quote anonymous Germans, whoever they may be, in defence of the preposterous position that 80 per cent. of all our laws come from the European Union.
	Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman was in very good company. Only two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of switching on the "Today" programme before 7 o'clock to find Mr. John Humphrys interviewing my favourite Euro-comic turn, Mr. Nigel Farage of the UK Independence party. Nigel—I hope that he does not mind my being familiar, but we get on quite well—said that 75 per cent. of all laws in the UK were now decided by the European Union: 5 per cent. less than the right hon. Gentleman's figure. I do not know what had happened in the intervening two or three months. As Mr. Humphrys is usually so swift and vigorous in picking up anything that is a palpable untruth, I wrote to the BBC to ask whether that figure was going to be corrected or whether Mr. Humphrys could be politely asked, next time he hears this nonsense, from whatever source, to slap it down.
	Before the European Parliament elections it is important that we establish certain accepted truths about the European Union. It is time to nail here in this House, and publicly, the lie that the EU is responsible for 80 per cent. of our laws, according to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, or for 75 per cent., according to Mr. Nigel Farage. I have here a letter from Mr. Malcolm Balen, a senior editorial adviser at BBC News. It is very friendly, but whenever someone from the BBC writes to one of us on these issues they go into a special room, cover themselves in grease, and then go for a swim in oil, so what he says is, to put it mildly, quite hard to grasp. He turns to Mr. Mark Mardell, the BBC's excellent Europe editor, saying that Mr. Mardell
	"has previously researched Mr Farage's claim, made on  Today, that this figure is 75 per cent., and found that it is supposedly based on a German government statement, although no-one has actually discovered it.
	Mark points out, however, that this whole area is a contentious one and that the last time he tried to establish an accurate figure he found the subject, in his words, too 'jelly-like' to nail down."
	We are not dealing with jelly, but with laws made in this country that affect all our citizens. On that point, I completely agree with the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, but we have to avoid a circular argument. That Conservative party front organisation against Europe, Open Europe, issued a document recently stating that the smoking ban and the provisions we have for cigarette packs originated in Europe. In fact, Britain was one of the earliest countries—going back to when there was a Conservative Government—to bring in the "smoking damages your health" warnings. They made the case for it in Europe, Europe made it a European-wide law, which I support, and it then came back into our law. We are seeing law made in Britain transposed through Europe back into our own legislation. We end up in a Kafkaesque world, where ideas start in Britain, and during a period of many years they go to Europe and are agreed there. They then come back into our law and are blamed on the European Union.
	This Bill does not contribute one whit to reform or educating the public. It is part of the continuing drive by the Conservative party, as we saw expressed at its conference last week, to cut all links with the ruling centre-right parties in Europe, and—if we were to experience the misfortune of their forming a Government—to take us steadily to the exit door of the European Union. I oppose this Bill.
	 Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in  b ills and nomination of  s elect  c ommittees at commencement of public business):—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 169, Noes 202.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

Children and Young Persons Bill  [Lords]

[Relevant documents:  T he Fifteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny, HC 440, and the Twenty-third Report from the Committee, Legislative Scrutiny: Government Replies, HC 755.]
	 As amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

New Clause 19
	 — 
	Support for accommodated children

'After paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act insert—
	 "Provision for accommodated children
	8A (1) Every local authority shall make provision for such services as they consider appropriate to be available with respect to accommodated children.
	(2) "Accommodated children" are those children in respect of whose accommodation the local authority have been notified under section 85 or 86.
	(3) The services shall be provided with a view to promoting contact between each accommodated child and that child's family.
	(4) The services may, in particular, include—
	(a) advice, guidance and counselling;
	(b) services necessary to enable the child to visit, or to be visited by, members of the family;
	(c) assistance to enable the child and members of the family to have a holiday together.
	(5) Nothing in this paragraph affects the duty imposed by paragraph 10."'.— [Sarah McCarthy-Fry.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6— Looked after status—
	'(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 85(4)(duty of local authority when notified of child accommodated by health authority or local education authority) at end insert "; and
	(c) consider whether, in the exercise of their functions under paragraph (b), the child's welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a looked after child."'.
	New clause 24— Responsibility for children in care who enter custody—
	'In section 20 of the 1989 Act after subsection (11), insert—
	"(12) Where a child was accommodated by the local authority under this section immediately before being detained, the child shall continue to be deemed a "looked after child" for the purposes of section 23(1)(b) and section 24 of this Act save for the provision of accommodation."
	(13) In this section "detained" means detained in a remand centre, a young offenders institution or a secure training centre, or any other institution pursuant to an order of a court."
	In section 22 of the 1989 Act after subsection (1)(b), insert—
	"(c) deemed to be looked after in accordance with section 20(12)."'.
	New clause 26— Support for family and friends carers—
	'After section 17B of the 1989 Act insert—
	"17C Support for family and friends carers
	(1) This section applies to a person ("P") who provides full-time care and accommodation for a child ("C") for more than 56 days but who is not—
	(a) a parent of the child, or
	(b) a local authority foster parent.
	(2) A local authority shall assess P's need for financial and other support under Part III of this Act to care for C in any of the following circumstances—
	(a) where the child comes to live with P as a result of a plan made following an enquiry under section 47 (local authority's duty to investigate) or a Family Group Conference;
	(b) where the child comes to live with P following an investigation under section 37 (powers of court in certain family proceedings);
	(c) where P has secured a residence order or special guardianship order in order to avoid the child being looked after, and there is professional evidence of impairment of the parents' ability to care for the child;
	(d) where P has obtained a residence order or special guardianship order arising out of care proceedings;
	(e) where P is providing accommodation for the child and then secures a residence order or special guardianship order.
	(3) The local authority shall provide such support as is required to meet the needs identified by the assessment referred to in this section."'.
	New clause 28— Collection of statistics—
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall collect and publish annually statistics on the accommodation arrangements for young people who were in the care of a local authority on 1st January of the year three years earlier than the year in which the statistics are published and were over 16 years old.
	(2) The statistics published under subsection (1) shall indicate in respect of the young persons the number who were with foster carers at the age of—
	(a) 19, and
	(b) 20.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
	Amendment No. 13, in clause 9, page 7, line 41, at end insert—
	'(e) C does not have more than three placements within a 12 month period or more than two placements within the last year of compulsory schooling.
	(8A) If the requirement in subsection (8)(e) is not complied with, the local authority must provide C with a written explanation.'.
	Amendment No. 14, in clause 10, page 9, line 14, at end insert—
	'(c) a strategy with their Housing and Planning department for maximising the availability of foster care placements.'.
	Amendment No. 18, in clause 11, page 9, line 28, at end insert—
	'(2A) A local authority must offer the services of an independent reviewing officer to any relevant child for whom it is the responsible local authority.'.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It is a great pleasure for me to open the debate. I am conscious that, as we are on Report, there have already been many hours of debate and deliberation, of which I was not part, given that I have only just joined the Department. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) for his dedication and hard work in taking the Bill through its previous stages, and wish him well in his new post.
	I shall introduce several Government amendments now and respond at the end of the debate to issues and questions that hon. Members raise. The first amendment grouping relates to three groups of children and young people: children who are provided with accommodation for three months or more under education and health legislation, the great majority of whom are disabled; children who are looked after or live with family and friends on the edge of care; and care leavers—relevant children who are 16 or 17 and former relevant children who are over 18.
	I will start with the group of the children who are in accommodation arranged under health and education legislation. Amendments similar to new clause 6 were considered in Committee. The Government highlighted the serious defects in those amendments and explained why they would have no practical effect. I do not propose to repeat that explanation. However, we all share the ambition to ensure that social services are actively involved in a timely and appropriate manner when a decision to accommodate a child away from home is taken, so that consideration is given in every case to the child's social care needs and to the needs of his family for support, to enable them to sustain their involvement in their child's life.

David Kidney: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to what is a strong ministerial team in the Department? May I also compliment her and the Department on how wide-ranging the amendments are and on how good the support is for families when their child is accommodated, perhaps hundreds of miles away from their home? That support includes help not just with travelling to meet each other, but even with going on holiday together. The proposal is a commendable amendment by the Government, who have responded to concerns raised in Committee.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It was important that the Government responded to the concerns that were raised in Committee. We considered our response when working with the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign—a campaign that I got involved in when I was first elected to the House and one that works so hard for disabled children. We worked with that campaign to see what more we could do to promote the welfare of that vulnerable group. I also had the opportunity to discuss the issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) earlier this week, on my first day as Minister in the Department.
	I am pleased to introduce the Government amendments, which will improve the well-being of the children concerned as part of a package that will make a significant contribution towards improving services for them. New clause 19 will require the local authority to have an appropriate tailored package of services suitable to meet the needs of children who are provided with accommodation under health or education legislation. In particular, the local authority will be expected to provide services that support the continuing active involvement of the parents in their child's life.

John Bercow: May I be the first from the Conservative Benches warmly to congratulate the hon. Lady on her deserved elevation? It is good to know that a long period of labour in the Back-Bench vineyard has received its just reward.
	In welcoming the thrust of new clause 19, may I gently say that it is not entirely clear to me—I do not mean to be pedantic; this is a serious point—why subsection (4), in contrast with subsection (1), says that the services "may" include the three categories set out? If the concept of the core offer to be applied universally is in ministerial minds, might it not be a good idea for the new clause to say not that the services "may" include those categories, but that they "shall" include them? That is a minor point, however; I wish the new clause and the hon. Lady well.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm and kind words. I am not quite sure where the vineyard comes from, but we will worry about that later.
	The point about the services and the support package that we will provide is that we will consult further on statutory guidance and regulations to determine what that support package may be. There is therefore still an opportunity—we are not being prescriptive—and we may be able to look at the matter further.

Lembit �pik: May I also welcome the hon. Lady, who has come from the Back-Bench vineyard? We know that the longer one leaves a wine, the more mature it gets.
	I agree with the intention of new clause 19, but it is not clear whether the services referred to under subsection (4)(a) could be provided by relevant third sector organisations such as Youth at Risk and Regenerate, in respect of which I declare a non-pecuniary interest. Will the Minister consider allowing third sector organisations with a relevant interest in improving young people's fortunes to facilitate in the kind of guidance and counselling referred to the new clause? Is she willing to accept representations from those voluntary sector organisations on how they might be able to facilitate the outcomes that the new clause is no doubt intended to achieve?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation and his warm words. I am pleased to be able to say, in the spirit in which we consulted when tabling new clause 19, that we want to consult as widely as possible on how the support packages will be put in place. It is Government policy to encourage voluntary and third sector organisations to get involved in the delivery of public services. Voluntary sector organisations very often enjoy the confidence of parents and others with whom they have worked for a long time, who do not see the barrier that they might sometimes see between themselves and those whom they may consider as authority figures. What the hon. Gentleman proposes is certainly something that we would consider when we consult on how the statutory guidance goes forward.

Joan Humble: I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend on her exciting new role. As president of Blackpool Advocacy, I mention independent advocacy virtually every time I stand up to discuss such issues. Will my hon. Friend look into the importance of offering accommodated children access to an independent advocate? When she liaises with third sector organisations, will she consult with those that represent independent advocacy services, which in my opinion are vital to so many young people?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for making that very valid point. My earlier point about parents and looked-after children having trust in the relationship and the people advocating for them is important. I will take that forward as we put the guidance together.
	The duty to arrange social work visits in clause 19 provides ongoing supervision for the placement that the local authorities will put in place and will ensure that the local authority can step in when there is any significant change in the child's circumstances. One of the most important services that local authorities can provide is to take all reasonable steps to maintain contact between the parent and the child. New clause 19 therefore specifically refers to services
	necessary to enable the child to visit, or...be visited by, members of the family
	and to
	assistance to enable the child and members of the family to have a holiday together,
	as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) pointed out.
	The Government expect agencies to work together when making long-term plans to accommodate children away from home. The existing requirement in section 85 of the Children Act 1989 for local authorities to consider their Children Act duties when notified that a child has been provided with accommodation by health or education is complemented by corresponding provisions in regulations made under part III of the 1989 Act and by education legislation and guidance, and is reflected at the structural level by the duty to co-operate in section 10 of the Children Act 2004, which underpins children's trusts.
	Effective inter-agency working is essential for such children. However, we recognise that in some cases inter-agency working arrangements are not as effective as they should be, so we will use regulations made under clause 19 to require a visit to take place within the first seven working days of a placement or notification of a placement, unless an initial assessment has already been carried out as part of the placement decision. That will provide the reassurance that children's social care professionals will be involved right at the start of the placement. It remains primarily the responsibility of the home local authorities to assess and provide services to meet the needs of the children being placed out of area under health or education legislation. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 make that position clear beyond doubt.
	I recognise that, for many children in long-term placements, parental engagement may unfortunately be difficult to establish or sustain. We will therefore strengthen statutory guidance to provide greater detail on the considerations relating to parental involvement and children's needs and on when it would be appropriate for the local authority to assume responsibility for providing accommodation under section 20 of the 1989 Act and thus for the child to become looked after.

Kerry McCarthy: I add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed to the Minister on her appointment. Will she confirm that when that statutory guidance is being considered, there will be consultation not only with groups such as Every Disabled Child Matters, which are obviously important in this respect, but with the families of the children, so that the guidance does not become something that they feel is being imposed on them by the local authority and that they are very much involved in the detail of it?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which comes back to the point that I have made two or three times on the importance of trust between the parents, the child and those who are assuming responsibility and finding placements for them, and supporting them. I will be happy to ensure that we consult as widely as possible in order to put the statutory guidance in place.
	This is a comprehensive package of measures that was developed in partnership with the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign, which many hon. Friends cited in Committee. As Every Disabled Child Matters says:
	These duties will make a huge difference to disabled young people in long-term placements, who are often placed far away from home, and can struggle to maintain contact with their families. The amendment should result in practical support to help families stay in touch with their children, such as help with transport costs, and also with essential advice and support to promote a strong relationship between disabled young people living away from home and their families.
	That is why the campaign wholeheartedly welcomes the amendment. As I have said, we will continue that constructive dialogue with Every Disabled Child Matters and other stakeholders, with parents and, of course, with hon. Members as we develop the regulations and statutory guidance.
	As well as the Government amendments, hon. Members will discuss amendments relating to placement moves for looked-after children, support for kinship carers and strategies for securing sufficient fostering placements. In relation to care leavers, we will discuss support for voluntarily accommodated children who go into custody, reviews for relevant children and data collections relating to care leavers. As I have said, I will deal with all those issues when I respond.

Tim Loughton: First, I add my congratulations to those already offered to the Minister on her promotion and her joining the Department. It is an interesting brief that she has taken on, although we regretfully wave goodbye to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who was a doughty champion of children's issuesboth in his ministerial role and in respect of his general intereston this and many previous children's Bills. He and I sparred on a friendly and positive basis over many years. He will be missed.
	I shall speak to the amendments in the order in which they have been selected and focus on those that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I shall refer first to Government new clause 19 and the concomitant amendments, which we very much welcome. I would certainly be churlish not to congratulate the Government on having listened to the not inconsiderable lobbying from Every Disabled Child Matters and other interested parties. We supported the amendments in Committee, and the former Minister was sympathetic to what we were trying to achieve in doing so.
	In Committee, I tabled new clauses 6 and 10, which endeavoured to achieve what these amendments are now achieving, and I am glad that the Government have found a formulation of words that has enabled them to add the proposals to the Bill. Ensuring that the welfare of disabled children in long-term residential placements is promoted and protected affects a relatively small number of children, but they make up an important and potentially vulnerable group and it is right that they should be given special consideration in the Bill, as they now are. That is why Every Disabled Child Matters has welcomed what the Government have done and described it as a dramatic step towards ensuring that all disabled children who live away from home are well supported.
	We tabled our amendments in Committee in an attempt to require local authorities to consider whether disabled children in long-term residential placements should have the protection and support of looked-after children status and to retain the flexibility to ensure that the right solution was found for each child and family, but also to ensure that every child placed away from home in those circumstances had their safeguarding needs properly considered. It was not to be imposed on those children; it would have been done in consultation with the families to ensure that the right safeguards were made available to each and every child appropriately.
	We welcome the amendments and, in particular, the practical support that I hope they will achieve in helping families to stay in touch with their children, for example, through help with transport coststhe Minister reiterated that pointand with essential advice and support to promote a strong relationship between disabled young people living away from home and their families. Strengthening the guidance as she has promised is welcome.
	I echo some of the comments made by Labour Members, in particular the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy), who played a significant part in Committee. We must ensure that before the final regulations are devised, there is close consultation on them with the disability sector, but also with the families involved, because we are talking about a finite and easily identifiable group of children and their families.

Anne Main: May I ask that consideration be given to grandparents and that the terminology for families is looked at as broadly as possible? Too often, grandparents have difficulties maintaining access to grandchildrenin a divorce situation, for exampleand the difficulties are manifold in situations such as those that we are discussing.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a key consideration that I am always aware of and which came up many times in Committee. When we talk about family, we are talking about not just the immediate family, but the extended family. As we know, grandparents are a lifeline in many cases, especially where there is a problem in relation to the child and the birth parents' ability to look after that child. I am sure that the Minister will take that point on board as well.
	I welcome, too, the reference to strengthening the visitor role and, in particular, the immediacy of ensuring that a relevant professional visits and makes an assessment. Too often, the immediate concern is to find the placement and then the pressure is off, but finding the placement is only the first stage. We have to ensure that all the necessary support packages are in place, so I welcome the Minister's comments in that regard.
	However, all this also hinges on the availability of the appropriate professionals, especially properly qualified dedicated social workers. We know about the problems related to the shortage of and turnover in social workers, particularly in the area of child protection and those with expertise in children with disabilities. That came up many times in Committee and it is quite a specialist area.
	Promoting the duty to notify will also be part of these considerations. Ensuring that the responsible authority has liaised properly with the host authority is a problem for children within the care systemboth those who are disabled and who are not disabledwhen they are placed out of area, as too many children still are. I hope that fewer will be as a result of other measures in the Bill. We welcome the Government new clause and the amendments that go with it.
	Our own lead proposal is new clause 24 and I need to notify you now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we would like the opportunity to vote on it. Given how the system works, that vote will come later rather than at the end of this debate, as our new clause is not the lead amendment.
	The new clause introduces a relatively new subject in terms of amendments to the Bill, but that subject has been of concern to me and my Conservative colleagues for some time. It involves the role of children in care in custodya group that is very vulnerable and too large. Some 10,000 children pass through the secure estate for juveniles every year. At any one time, as we know all too well, approximately 3,000 children under the age of 18 are in custody in this country. It is not a good thing that we have locked up so many children and kept them off the streets; it is a sign of failure that they should have to be in custody in the first place. Many of us will agree that we need to think and act smarter as to how we divert those children from the custodial estate.
	According to the Youth Justice Board, 71 per cent.almost three quartersof children in custody have been in the care of or involved with social services prior to entering custody. That is an alarming figure, again showing the failure of the state as the corporate parent, as three quarters of its charges in the custody system will have been in the care of children's services previously. That is an indictment of the system.
	The Care Matters Green Paper noted that the majority of children in carethose under section 20 of the 1989 Actlose their looked-after status on entering custody. The only children and young people with care status in custody are: those under a full care order of section 31; those classified as in need under section 17 of the 1989 Act by the local authority in which the establishment is based during their time in custody; those children on remand in secure training centres or secure children's homes; those 16 or 17-year-olds who have spent enough time in care to be relevant children, which is the technical term; and finally, 18 to 21-year-olds who are former relevant children.
	The Green Paper did not go so far as to suggest that children entering custody should not lose their looked-after status. It did, however, suggest that children entering custody should be needs-assessed, and that individuals should continue to be supported as if they were a child in care. But any reference to children in custody was watered down in the Care Matters: Time for Change White Paper, to a requirement for social workers to visit previously looked-after children while in custody. The continuity of that arrangement is something of a postcode lottery.
	Over the summer recess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you noticed and read from cover to cover the report produced by the Centre for Social Justice entitled Couldn't Care Less. That excellent report was the result of a lot of research and interviews with people involved in the care system and the children themselves. The report states that the methods by which a child arrived in care should not influence the level of oversight and care that local authorities exercise over children in care who go into custody. Surely all children within the care system should be equal in the eyes of their corporate parent.
	Let me quote some passages from the report, which are relevant to the need for specific action to be taken to give extra support and status to children in care in the custody system. It states:
	Children in care are being criminalised because Local Authorities are failing in their responsibilities to prevent them drifting into criminality. Mental health problems are left to deteriorate and neglectful Local Authorities provide more opportunities for children to be in contact with the police than to be in education or employment.
	Once involved with the criminal justice system, it is difficult to disentangle children in care. The majority are placed in custodial settings: existing facilities do little to address the reasons why children commit crimes, nor do they teach them the skills necessary to live successful lives outside of prison. Local Authorities provide children in custody with poor support, both when they are in prison and when they leave it. As a result, many offenders with a background in care reoffend costing the taxpayer millions, and go on to experience a life burdened by unhappiness and dependency
	effectively getting into a cycle of despair.

David Kidney: In a little while, I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak about new clause 26, which relates to support for children on the edge of care. However, the hon. Gentleman talks about support for children at risk of going to prison, but there is one stage missing on the list that he has read out. It would be immensely helpful if social workers turned up at court with the children for whom they are responsible, so that magistrates effectively had the representative of the parent in front of them.

Tim Loughton: As is often the case, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I completely agree with him. We need to do far more preventively to keep children out of the custody system. That means better, closer working with consistent social workers, who are able to have a closer relationship. For those at the edge of custody, however, it also means ensuring that the key support person gives assurances to a court that steps could be taken to keep that child out of custody. That would require all the support packages on which he and I agree and to which his new clause alludes.
	The trouble is that 3,000 children are already in the custody system, of whom a majority are from the care system. When they get out, we need to make sure that they are supported appropriately and can go into a setting that will ensure that they do not return to custody, and that they get back into the mainstream as quickly and smoothly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would fully agree with those intentions.
	I do not want to read out the whole report, although some of its contents are startling. Another statistic that came out, however, is that only 2 per cent. of the current care population in prison
	were placed there due to socially unacceptable behaviour of their own, the majority are in care as a result of abuse, neglect or family breakdown.
	They are not career criminals, but deeply damaged children from deeply damaged backgrounds, who find themselves caught up in a vortex of unacceptable behaviour, the only response to which is an unsmart, unsophisticated one of banging them up. That is not good enough, and it is also highly counter-productive given the recidivism rates.
	For a child in the justice systemwhether they are from the care system or notat a young offenders institution, if placed on a sentence of less than 12 months, the recidivism rate is 92 per cent. That was the last statistic I heard. It is therefore virtually guaranteed that a child going into the system will make a career of offending. That cannot be right or helpful to the child, or to the community that must temporarily host that child before they get back on to the conveyor belt into crime.
	We must consider the extra stresses on young people in prison. The Mental Health Foundation, for example, has estimated that rates of mental health problems among children and young people in the youth justice system are at least three times higher than those in the general population. Children in the care system are much more likely to have mental health problems, and are exponentially more likely to have mental health problems when they go into the justice system.
	A vicious circle of deprivation exists. There is a triple whammy: perverse financial incentives to provide inappropriate kinds of custody; poor care, education and training in custody to prevent reoffending; and inadequate planning for release and support after leaving custody.

Charles Walker: I am sorry that I have not read the report from which my hon. Friend has quoted. How much does it cost to keep a child in custody per year?

Tim Loughton: It is [Interruption.]a six-figure sum; that is what I am being prompted to say. Usually I have the figures at my fingertips. For someone who reaches the age of 18 who has gone into the youth custody system, I had a figure of well in excess of 1 million for all the costs of looking after them and of police investigations and detention. It is a substantial sum and much higher than the amount that could be put into prevention and early intervention to keep them out of the youth custody system in the first place. I am sure that the Minister would offer to write to my hon. Friend with the exact figure.

John Bercow: rose

Tim Loughton: If my hon. Friend has the figure at his fingertips, it will save the Minister writing the letter.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful. I am not in the business of preventing a letter from being written, but pursuant to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), may I put it to my hon. Friend that it is often a question of spending now in order to save later? Does he not agree that the fact that there are 11,000 people in our young offenders institutions, of whom typically more than 60 per cent. suffer from speech, language and communication problems that prevent them from gaining access to education or training courses, is a damning indictment? Do not those people perhaps need an independent advocate or A. N. Other to trigger the provision of a relatively inexpensive service which will do those people and the country great good, and prevent the vastly increased costs that would otherwise be incurred at a later stage?

Tim Loughton: I thank my hon. Friend, not for saving the Minister from having to write the letter but for the point that he has made so well. He and I, along with other Members, discussed precisely that problem during a Westminster Hall debate this morning. We all agreed that, however the process is triggeredand there are different ways of triggering itit is essential to ensure that early intervention support services are available to those with speech and language difficulties, autism and associated special educational needs. A disproportionate number of children in the care system suffer from communication difficulties of that kind which might have been avoidedor at least alleviatedthrough early intervention.
	I want to make a few more points about new clause 19 before turning to the other new clauses and amendments in the group. It is the largest group on the list, soas I am sure you will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy SpeakerI shall not be as verbose as this later.
	If we are truly to help our most vulnerable young people, the children who are already looked after on entering custody should not cease to be looked after. They should be entitled to all the benefits conferred by section 20 of the Children Act 1989, bar perhaps the provision of accommodation by the local authority. That would ensure that all looked-after children entering custody did not become even more disadvantaged. In 2005-06, about a quarter of the number of boys and half the number of girls in custody were held over 50 miles away from their homes, according to the Youth Justice Board. Again, continuity of care in such circumstances is all-important. The new clause would ensure that local authorities were in a position to provide suitable accommodation and support for looked-after children leaving custody.
	The new clause is also important in safeguarding the longer-term provision of support for many extremely vulnerable children who at present should qualify for leaving-care assistance under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. A child is eligible under the Act if he or she is aged 16 or 17 and has been looked after by a local authority for 13 weeks or more, provided that the period began after the child had reached the age of 14 and ended after he or she had reached the age of 16. The 13-week period does not need to be continuous, but a series of pre-planned short-term placements of under four weeks at the end of which the child returns to the care of a parent, or a person who has responsibility for him or her, will not count. Periods during which a child is remanded in the care of the local authority or in remand in a secure training centre will count, but remand to a young offenders institution will not.
	There are anomalies in the system, and it will often be difficult to determine whether or not a child is eligible. At present, a typical scenario that needs to be considered would involve a young person being placed under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 owing to his or her chaotic circumstances, possibly as a result of court proceedings and bail requirements, but then being remanded to a young offenders institution or sentenced to custody before the 13-weeks were up. The child would thereby lose any entitlement to leaving-care rights. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) may wish to comment on that, as it is an issue of which he has a great deal of experience.
	Ensuring that those accommodated under section 20 do not lose their looked-after status on entering custody will entitle such vulnerable children to the support that they need to make the transition from childhood to adulthood and independent living, hopefully at liberty as well. The implications for successful resettlement when they leave custody are clear. However, as things stand there is a perverse incentive working in the system. I do not say that it is being taken advantage of or that it is happening a lot, but there is a perverse incentive for a children's services department to foist a child in care on to the youth justice system so that the department no longer has responsibility, let alone financial liability, for the child. That is an enormous waste of money, and such deckchair-shifting is certainly not in the interests of the childwhich, as always, must be our primary consideration.
	The points made by the hon. Member for Stafford in new clause 26along with, I am sure, the points that he will make in his speechecho points made in Committee, and I sympathise very much with them. The hon. Gentleman's aim is to increase support for family and friends carers. We have long championedI tabled many amendments in Committee, which were supported by a number of members of all partiesthe need to ensure that kinship care becomes a much more extensively used resource. It is still the case that only 4 per cent. of social worker-initiated placements are with kinship carers, which cannot make sense.
	Despite the requirement that kinship carers should be at the top of the hierarchy of placements, they are still not getting enough of a look-in. Many of us will have been visited in our surgeries by, typically, grandparents who have offered to take on the care of a grandchild whose parents are deemed to be incapable of doing so, but are having to battle to gain that responsibilityand if they do gain it, many must then battle to obtain proper support and remuneration.

Julie Kirkbride: My hon. Friend has just given the House a shocking figure relating to the number of placements with kinship carers. Why does he think so few people gain access to children with whom they have blood relationships? That seems absolutely bizarre, and perhaps answers the wider question of why children in care in the United Kingdom do so badly.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend has raised a good point, which she also raisedand we discussedin Committee. It is a complicated problem, but I think that ultimately it is simply easier to place a child with a non-connected foster carer who may be on the local authority's books, and whom a social worker may know to be a safe pair of hands. The extra work involved, and the extra risk that may be involved, in taking on a new and unknown quantity in the form of a kinship carer can be enough to tip the balance.
	I am not trying to attach blame to social workers; the blame lies with the system. As we know from last year's report by our own commission on social workers, they are still under severe pressure. The lack of continuity among them makes it very difficult for them to form the close attachment to a case that should be required for, particularly, very vulnerable children. In Denmark some 40 per cent. of placements are made with kinship carers, which shows that it can be done, but for some reason our system militates against it. All the evidence shows that that lack of investment is a false economy, and that children placed with kinship carers fare as well as, if not better than, children raised by unrelated foster carers.

Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to pursue the point. He is a great expert on these matters. Clearly, when a local authority goes out to look for foster carers it exercises a rigorous process of selection to ensure that the children involved will be safe and well looked after, in line with the high standards that we seek in a foster carer. Inevitably, if a child is placed with a kinship carer, the standard of parenting is likely to be lower because of the compensatory factors involved in the existence of a kinship relationship. How can local authorities solve that difficult conundrum?

Tim Loughton: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to mention a specific case that she and I discussed yesterday. A degree of political correctness had crept in: although the potential foster carers or, ultimately, adopters appeared largely to fit the bill in that context, some of their views were rather less acceptable. In fact, there is a degree of political correctness in the whole issue. We should be more willing to take a risk when there is a chance that a child may have a solid second chance of a stable life with a kinship carer.
	We debated the matter for many hours in Committee. Anything that we can do to re-establish some stability in a familiar environment, with familiar friends and with family members who one can trust, must be preferable, unless there is a clear risk of harm to the welfare of that child, which must always be the overriding consideration, to placing a child with an unknown foster carer.

Angela Watkinson: I wonder how widely family group conferencing, which is mentioned in new subsection (2)(a) of new clause 26, is used among local authorities. It was used by Essex county council when I was a councillor there. I understand that the concept started among the Maori community in New Zealand, where the idea of kinship was extended even further and a group of people were brought together who were involved in that child's life but were not necessarily family members. Those people worked together to prevent the child from being taken into care. I wonder whether there is a requirement on local authorities to investigate family group conferencing or is it a voluntary thing? How widely is it used?

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend knows that we have raised the subject of family group conferencing before. It gained a lot of support from Conservative Members, and I think that other Members also felt that its use needed to be expanded much more. We tabled an amendment to reinforce the desirability of pursuing family group conferencing, but, alas, the harshness of Mr. Speaker's selection process has not allowed it to be debated today. I am sure that he is right in his decision; it is just a shame that we have not been able to debate that amendment. However, we have had an opportunity, through my hon. Friend, to say how much we support family group conferencing and getting everyone around the table: extended family members, close friends and all the agencies and professionals involved. That must be the best way to determine what is the best and most appropriate action for the child, because it means that all the opportunities are explored at the same time and kinship carers who want to put themselves forward can do so at the beginning and all the pros and cons of that option can be investigated, rather than adopting the all too common We'll get back to you approach. I seem to be lingering too long on a new clause which is not mine, but the hon. Member for Stafford will gather that there is support for what he is trying to achieve.
	New clause 28 was tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) with whom I concur about the paucity of information about accommodation arrangements for 19 and 20-year-olds. Once again, we are frustrated by Government replies that say that those figures are not collected centrally, because we need that intelligence if we are to discover the extent of the problem, especially given the fact that it does not exist just to the age of 16 or 18.
	I am aware that there is an amendment on the selection list tabled by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth), on which we will reserve judgment until she has spoken about it. I will not try to pre-empt her, as I have the hon. Member for Stafford, but we had advance warning of what he is trying to achieve.
	Amendment No. 13 is not rocket science and what it proposes is not new. In fact, we went back to the matter on numerous occasions in Committee. Basically, it is about trying to put a cap on placements. I know that that is fraught with problems, but there is a strongly held view that the biggest issue undermining the chances of looked-after children getting a decent second chance is instability in their placements. If they are constantly being pushed from one foster placement to another, for the convenience often of the system rather than for their convenience, because it is easier to take a child in care from one foster parent to another some miles away than to try to provide the support package that that child needs to enable them to stay with the first foster parentthe child may have complex needsthat must be detrimental to that child's ability to get back on the straight and narrow. It must also be detrimental to efforts to secure some stability in the child's education, particularly when a new placement means moving from one school to another.
	The amendment repeats the principles that we supported in Committee by trying to cap the number of placements that a child can have, other than in exceptional circumstances, particularly for those children who are reaching the last year of their compulsory schooling, when such moves can obviously have a detrimental effect on their capacity to take their exams and to pass them.
	We know that the educational outcome figures for children in care remain appalling. In school year 11, 64 per cent. of looked-after children obtained at least one GCSE or GNVQ, compared with 99 per cent. of all school children, and 13 per cent. obtained at least five GCSEs or equivalent at grades A to C, compared with 62 per cent. of all children. That gap has been widening. Although the achievements of children in care have been improving, that has not happened at nearly as fast a rate as among children in general. That is unacceptable.
	The amendment would fix a cap on the number of placements, and if that cap were breached, it would be judged an exception to the rule and the local authority would have to give a full explanation of why that had been allowed to happen and what had been done to prevent a repetition. Fostering is the backbone of the care system. Seventy-one per cent. of children in care are now in foster placements, but a National Foundation for Educational Research report found that 29 per cent. of children in care had had three or more placements during their secondary school years, and 25 per cent. of them had had six or more placements. Some survey work for a report by the Centre for Social Justice revealed that almost one in 10 of care leavers interviewed had experienced more than six placements before they were 16 and that some had been in as many as 30. It also found that 41 per cent. of foster carers thought that stability would make the biggest difference to children in care. As David Holmes of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering said:
	The one thing that would make a difference to children is having a strong relationship based on strong attachment, intimacy and trust with at least one trusted individual which is going to be there for that child.
	Research has shown the importance of stability and continuity of care and its long-term effects on mental health. In a study carried out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, adults who had been raised in stable foster homes and received specialist support from a dedicated fostering agency were found to be more socially well integrated.

John Bercow: It is always a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend's mellifluous tones, but surely the overarching theme of our consideration in these remaining stages is the rights, chances and outcomes of some of the most vulnerable children in our society. Before he concludes his remarks, I wonder whether, referring to his important exchanges on 16 June in the Second Reading debate, he would care to say something about the arguments powerfully articulated by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) for the independent advocate, which has not yet featured in our proceedings, but seems to me to be at the heart of the debate.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which is somewhat separate from the point here, because, again, I do not believe that Mr. Speaker in his wisdom has selected any amendments to do with the independent advocate. Therefore, he would not want me to traipse down that path, but hon. Members on both sides of the Committee had some sympathy with the proposal to enhance that role, particularly for the most vulnerable children.
	If social workers do not have the time to get to know children in care, they will be less likely to understand their true needs and to make effective decisions about the right type of care for those children. Furthermore, overstretched social workers find it harder to support children than those who look after them throughout their placements. Continuity and stability must surely be key, which is why we have tabled amendment No. 13.
	Finally, you will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, amendment No. 14 raises a new issue. It is a probing amendment, so I trust that the Minister or any of my hon. Friends will not ask me to flesh out too much of the detail.
	Councillors and those in children's services in various local authorities have mentioned problems with foster carers making adaptations to their houses or with housing a sufficient number of children, particularly in London boroughs. The shortage of foster carers is estimated at anything between 6,000 and 10,000 and there is a particular shortage of specialist foster carers to deal with complex needs and with some forms of disability, both physical and mental.
	3 pm

Siobhain McDonagh: I defer to everybody herethey are much more knowledgeable about this topic than mebut my concern regards potential foster children with physical needs and disabilities and the difficulties that foster carers have in claiming disabled facilities grants. Has the hon. Gentleman taken that into account?

Tim Loughton: That is part of the general principle behind the amendment. I am interested to hear the Under-Secretary's comments on it and to hear how that might be conveyed to those responsible in the unlikely event of her not wanting to accept the amendment.
	For local authorities coming up with strategies for looked-after children, it is not just a question of Have we got the right number of foster carers and the appropriate services? It is also a question of trying to get some flexibility in creating the environments that enable more foster carers to come forward, or that allow more current foster carers to increase their responsibility, such that they could accommodate more children at home if they made some adaptations. That might involve various grants being available, as the hon. Lady has just said. It would certainly involve some leeway on planning policies in some cases. I would go well beyond my brief if I tried to suggest that there should be a change in planning policy guidance of any description.
	Housing and planning departments must be included within the planning for foster care placements in particular. I can think of one London borough where this has happened informally and, as a result, there is a much higher number of foster carers and the authority is able to make many more foster placements. More leeway could be allowed in terms of adaptations for children with disabilities or in the ability to accommodate more children, within the realms of safety; one is not trying to take risks. I wanted to place it on record in this probing amendment that housing and planning departments have a role in this as well, although one would not normally expect them to.
	I am aware that I have taken up rather a lot of the House's time but this is the largest grouping of amendments. There are some important amendments among them but I certainly would wish to pursue new clause 24 in a vote later today.

David Kidney: There was a time when I thought that Report stage was a misnomer for this part of our proceedings, becauseexcept for those who had been on the Committeewhat had happened before, and what was to happen next, to the Bill concerned was a complete mystery to Members. I was pleased to suggest a few years ago to the Procedure Committee and to the Modernisation Committee that we should have a report for the Report stage. The Library now does produce a report, and there is one for this Bill.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned advocacy. I can report back from Committee that the Minister of State said to me that the existing entitlement to advocacy to make a complaint or representation remained. In the case of a representation, that word should be read widely to mean as many things as people would like. The existing law gives quite good access to advocacy for youngsters. I know that the hon. Gentleman stressed the word independent, and there is still an argument about how independent some advocates might be.
	As I said earlier, the Government amendments are welcome and deal with a number of points that were made in Committee. Much of the debate in Committee revolved around visits to children in care who had been placed a long way from their homes. To some extent, the amendments give some reassurance. In the Bill there is also a new restriction on how often local authorities will place children in their care beyond the borders of the home local authority. That is very welcome. The Bill requires that local authorities placing both beyond and within their borders must ensure regular visits to the child where he or she is placed. That will help.

Si�n James: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that constituencies such as mine have cases where children have been moved because of the lack of appropriate accommodationin one case from Swansea to Essex, making visiting almost impossible. Could we try to ensure that such placements do not occur?

David Kidney: My hon. Friend makes a good point about focusing attention on reducing the need for children to be placed a long way from home and on the importance of keeping contact between children and their relatives. Distance could become a serious obstacle to maintaining that relationship. My hon. Friend is quite right: we should try to ensure that there is an even spread of specialist provision around the country, so that the nearest site is not too far away.
	The amendments and new clauses in the group are about some special placements in a residential school, a residential health facility or a residential care home. The Govt amendments suggest that perhaps in the past there has not been enough attention on ensuring that the relationship between the child and his or her family is maintained strongly. The Government amendments are welcome in being so bold; they say that there shall be services for families to make sure those relationships are maintained. As I said, the amendments say that there should be help in keeping families in contact, including physical visits. Going further, there may be a case for holidays together, perhaps paid for or arranged by the local authority.
	Another, technical, pointit is more related to the amendments at the end of the group rather than the new clauseis that quite often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) has just said, the placement is in another part of the country within the area of a completely different local authority. Perhaps another weakness in the care system in the past has been the lack of engagement between two local authorities when one is the child's home authority and the other is where the child is currently placed.
	In my area there is a well-known specialist psychiatric hospital with residential care for children and young persons. Children come from all over the country to be treated there. They will have come from homes in many local authorities around the country, and their families will be some considerable distance away. The Government amendment is welcome, because it stresses that the home authority is not able to wash its hands of a child because it has moved the child to a completely different part of the country and placed the child in the care of a specialist provider of treatment. It also stresses that there should be a good relationship between the home authority and the authority within which the child is currently placed. It will be to the benefit of families and children for there to be that acceptance by the two authorities that they must work together. For those reasons, I am a strong supporter of the Government amendments.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned my new clause 26, and I am pleased to urge the Government to do more to provide assistance to children and their families when a child is on the edge of coming into the care of a local authority. We know that, historically, the outcomes for children in care can be catastrophically bad in many situations.
	Therefore, if there is a prospect of maintaining a child within loving caring relationships with blood relatives or friends who have known the child for many years, common sense tells us that in most cases that would be of benefit, and better than the alternative of care. In answer to this debate, I want the Government at least to say that it is their intention that the greatest possible effort will be made to ensure that children have the benefit of every possible alternative to care, when it involves family, friends and relatives, being considered, so that they can avoid the possible outcome of a poor experience in care. The Bill, of course, strengthens the requirement of local authorities to consider the importance of family and friends as possible alternative carers before considering a decision to take into care, and that is very welcome.
	There is a briefing in support of new clause 26 from the Family Rights Group, within which there is a case study about a grandmother who was bereaved and therefore living on her own, and who took responsibility for a young grandson because both parents were incapacitated by drugs and drink problems and unable to be the carers. That grandparent found there was an extraordinary lack of support in terms of finances, practical help, respite care, support groups and therapy for the child in her care, and she was left literally holding the baby.
	That struck a chord with me in respect of a case in my constituency I have been involved with for most of the last 11 years, involving a grandmother in a very similar situation who often had to contact me because she did not have the money or the breaks for herself, or the support for her grandson, for whom she had accepted responsibility because neither parent could manage. She did not have access to the right mental health services for the benefit of her grandson until her Member of Parliament weighed in on her side. It should not be the case that an acceptable service will be provided for a relative who steps in in such a way only if a Member of Parliament gets involved. By putting my name to new clause 26, I am seeking to underline the fact that it should be routine for local authorities to look for relatives who might be able to save the child from having to go into care at all, and to assess what kind of support will be needed for such relatives to be able to cope and make sure there are happy outcomes for that child, not unhappy ones.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman speaks with considerable wisdom and authority on these matters, and I hope he agrees that support can take a multiplicity of different forms. Let us take a scenario in which it is judged most fitting and appropriate for a child or young person to be placed in a residential establishment a significant distance from the home of his parent or guardian. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the parent or guardian wishes to see that child or young person and the feeling is mutual, it is important that poor socio-economic circumstances should not prevent that contact? To put it simply, does the hon. Gentleman agree that as a matter of course, not on the basis of a postcode lottery, transport costs ought to be paid or subsidised so that the good and healthy relationship that should subsist between parent and child is given the chance to be created and nurtured?

David Kidney: Unreservedly, my answer is yes. By asking that question, the hon. Gentleman highlights a separate point about new clause 26 that I would like to touch upon. So far, I have been discussing the importance of a local authority giving assistance to family members to enable them to keep a child out of care altogether, but if a child ends up having to be in care, most of us would like that period of care to be as short as possible while any family problems are resolved, so that the child can be rehabilitated back into the family. If part of the period in care results in a placement a long way from home, perhaps for the reason of necessary specialist health care provision, it might be extremely important for the possible final outcome of the child being rehabilitated home that contact be kept up between the child and the family members who eventually will take over responsibility again for the care of that child on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, transport costs and other practical obstacles would be an important consideration for a local authority that was doing its job properly, because the alternative to doing its job properly would be to make it a self-fulfilling prediction that once the child was in care it would stay in care until adulthood. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, with which I agree.
	If the Minister intends to say at the end of the debate that she does not think there is any need for new clause 26 because the existing law says all that is necessary, in one sense I am inclined to accept her argument, because if every local authority fully implements the lawas the best authorities already dothere probably will not be a problem. However, I think she will agree that practice varies to an unacceptable degree between good and bad local authorities. Therefore, it is important for us to ensure that all authorities perform to an acceptable standard. One of the reasons why many of us try to insist on everything being written into the law is the fact that at least if something is in the law every authority knows it has to do it, rather than authorities simply being encouraged to do it, which might allow some of them to backslide. We would not want them to backslide on such an important subject.
	The Government already have a splendid policy document called Every Child Matters, and not long ago they launched the implementation plan for it, which, happily, explicitly includes a section on supporting children on the edge of care. That is on page 11 of the implementation strategy, and it says by way of introduction:
	The most important relationship for almost all children, whether in care or not, is with their family members: parents and siblings.
	It goes on to emphasise that it is important for local authorities and social workers who are thinking about whether a care decision needs to be made to consider whether there are relatives or friends who are able to take the role of primary carers, to avoid that care decision being taken. It talks about analysing needs, supporting parents and parenting, and assessing whether there is a need for therapy. It also talks about the Government producing in due course a new framework for family and friends care.
	I ask the Minister to say, in responding to our debate, that if new clause 26 is not necessary in law, that document on a new framework for family and friends care will, when it is produced, make it clear to every authority that they have to do the things new clause 26 proposes should be done. It would be useful to all those friends, family members, informal carers and grandparents who would like to be able to help in the future to know that there is some named contact or named part of a local authority team who they will always be able to get in touch with and expect a proper and constructive response. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will say at the end of the debate that there will be an emphasis on these matters in that document, when it is produced, and that there will be a named contact of somebody at the local authority to respond to the concerns of family and friends who want help in the upbringing of a child.
	The implementation plan deals with many more issues as well, but at the end it says that there is a role for monitoring and evaluation of local authority performance. I agree with that. It stresses among those processes of evaluation and monitoring the role of the Children's Rights Director, currently Roger Morgan. It is to be welcomed that he recently produced his annual monitor of what young people themselves think about the system of care in this country, and that in future he will produce that monitor in a particular format with six headingssubjects on which he will always obtain children and young people's views. It is to be hoped that over time that will give us some good, reliable and consistent evidence about how things are going, and help us identity local authorities that are not doing so well.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman skip back to the issue of people in the family looking after children? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned the figure of 6 per cent. here, and for Denmark the figure of 40 per cent. What does the hon. Gentleman think is the reason for this difference between Britain and Denmark?

David Kidney: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said that in only 4 per cent. of cases will a social worker place the child with family and friends for care. As he said, in some continental countries, the situation is very different. I hesitate to say that I know very much about practices in Sweden or any other country, but I have heard people from Sweden speak about how they do things differently there. I have also heard people from Germany, Denmark and Spain talk about how they do things. Each version has some attractions, but I am mindful of the saying that the grass always looks greener on the other side of the valley.
	I do not know enough to answer the question that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) poses, but we do have the recent investigation of our performance and the UN convention on the rights of the child. Perhaps it would be instructive to read some of the criticisms of this country revealed in that investigation, including the hostile attitude to children in some parts of the media, which may make the environment in which we work different from that in Sweden.
	I support amendment No. 18, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth), about independent reviewing officers. I will leave her to explain the amendment's significance, but it seeks to address the situation of youngsters between 16 and 18, who are in a period of transition. We hope that they are being prepared for a life of independence after care, rather than pushed out of care too soon and with too little support. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain why we think that much more attention should be paid to that group, and much better arrangements should be made to support them. That is true especially with regard to their accommodation, so that they can successfully make the transition into becoming responsible adult citizens when they have eventually left care.
	New clause 28 was tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and I think that it is supported by the Fostering Network. It is about collecting information about youngsters who have been in care beyond the age of 18 and up to the age of 20, and it is designed to ensure that the Government collect the information about the staying put pilots, which regularly featured in the debates in Committee. Those pilots have enabled youngsters who are in foster care when they attain adulthoodand therefore their care endsto stay in a successful placement with a foster carer beyond 18, and, crucially, for them to continue to receive support from the local authority, perhaps until they are established in a job or make a success of university education. In that way, their accommodation is not destabilised and the efforts that they and their foster carer are making are not undermined.

Brian Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should seek reassurance from the Government that every local authority will ensure that children in careespecially those with educational needswho attain the age of 18 are not automatically made to start living independently, but are allowed to remain in long-term fostering until they have completed their education or training? Should not that be a child's right, rather than a local authority option to make that provision?

David Kidney: I agree with my hon. Friend. The educational achievements of children who are, or have been, in care are historically poor, compared with their peers. Educational achievement is one of the many strong focuses of this Bill, and it includes provisions to strengthen the arrangements in schools to ensure that the special needs of children with a care background are taken into account in their education. His point reinforces the point that I have just made. If a young person, despite all the obstacles put before them, has made every effort to achieve good qualifications and has the ambition and drive to go to universityor to a college of further education to achieve vocational qualifications to improve their employabilitywe do not want a weakness in the arrangements for their accommodation to undermine their efforts.
	I chair the associate parliamentary group for looked-after children and care leavers, and when we had a session on this issue, a foster carer told me about the attempts of a girl for whom she was caring to go to university, which were completely undermined because when she turned 18 she received no support from the local authority during the university breaks, when she came home and wanted to continue to live with her foster carer. In the end, the foster carer gave up being the foster carerand therefore suffered financial lossbecause she was so determined to see the girl through university. That was a commendable and brave decision, but not one that we, as responsible legislators, would wish to force on either of them.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because he is well briefed on all these matters, that the Commission for Social Care Inspection has described transition arrangements from secondary school to post-16 education as a nightmare. Pursuant to what the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) valuably said a moment ago, does he agree that in seeking to trigger an improvement in the quality of post-16 education services, we should be ready to draw on the expertise and commitment of the voluntary sector? In particular, we should recognise the responsibility to do what is educationally best rather than what is administratively convenient, and not simply dump children with real difficulties in often wholly unsuitable pupil referral units.

David Kidney: Again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are some fabulous voluntary organisations that are active in that very sector. I make a plea to local authorities that may be doubtful about the added value of voluntary sector partners to recognise that they can make a huge difference to the quality of outcome for the young people concerned. Local authorities should embrace those partners wholeheartedly.
	On balance, the Government's approach of setting out the legal requirements plainly and supplementing them with the strong guidance, codes and forward planning in documents such as Every Child Matters is right, provided that we maintain evaluation and monitoring and that we chivvy the local authorities that do not perform as well as most others do. Having said that, I support new clause 19.

Annette Brooke: May I belatedly add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary on her new position, to which we warmly welcome her.
	I wish first to address new clause 19, amendment No. 89 and new clause 6. It is vital to ensure that the welfare of disabled children in long-term residential placements is promoted and protected. I welcome the process by which we have reached these amendments. We talked at great length about the possibility of looked-after status for children placed in long-term residential homes and other settings, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and we had a good response from the Minister in Committee. I may have retained some slight doubts, as I tabled the amendments again immediately after the Committee stage, but I am delighted that new clause 19 and Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are before the House today.
	Clearly, it has been a productive summer for Ministers and officials, as they have continued their positive engagement with the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign on this issue. That organisation has said that new clause 19 and Government amendments 8 and 9, along with their accompanying package of regulations and guidance, are a dramatic step towards ensuring that all disabled children who live away from home are well supported and kept safe and that they maintain good contact with their families. That brings a warm feeling, and I hope that it all works.
	Also important has been the clarification that local authorities will retain social care responsibility for children whom they place, and that will be especially helpful in ensuring that children's needs are met. I welcome the Minister's earlier assurance that the consultation on the regulation will be of the fullest nature, and that it will include a wide range of organisations and, of course, the families themselves.
	The debate has touched already on the role of visitors. Will the visitor always be a qualified social worker with experience of working with disabled children? As has been noted, it is very important that the two local authorities are truly engaged when there is a placement away from home. Despite current regulations, however, we know that the necessary notification does not always take place. What steps will be taken to promote and clarify notification duties when one local authority makes a placement in another local authority area? Nevertheless, I am extremely hopeful that the measures before us will offer a new level of protection and support for disabled children and their families. They represent a very exciting move forward.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has said that he intends to press new clause 24 to a vote, and I can assure him that my colleagues on these Benches will be very pleased to support it. Among the many tragedies involving children, two are especially awful. The first is that 3,000 children are in prison, and the second is that a high proportion of them have been, or remain, in the care system. Those are very vulnerable children, and we have to give them every possible support. We must address as a matter of urgency the problem that some appear to fall through the net and out of care status.
	Another reason why it is important to fill the gaps is that there can be nothing harder for a young person leaving custody than to find that there is no support when it comes to finding accommodation. That has to be one of the most difficult situations for a child to be in, and it is vital that we close what appears to be a loophole in the law. We must make sure that children in care leaving custody are supported in their search for accommodation.
	I also welcome new clause 26. In Committee, there was a great deal of debate about the enormous importance of kinship caring. Lots of fine words were probably spoken about promoting kinship caring, and about the need to make sure that good practice was established and spread. Some local authorities are very good at that, but we need to make sure that every child has the same opportunities. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, we have to make the greatest possible effort to tackle the problems faced by a child on the edge of care.
	In Committee, I was not convinced about the level of support that might be offered to kinship carers. Yes, there has been some movement in that regard: some money is to be made available, but I still come across kinship carers who, for whatever reason, are not foster carers and who are under considerable financial pressure. I feel that that problem needs further consideration, as does the question of the practical support that a grandparent might need when taking on the care of a child.

Mark Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that clause 24 proposes the deletion of a local authority's discretion under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to make payments only in exceptional circumstances. That is a welcome step, but does she agree that we need further clarity about the sort of support that peopleand especially grandparentscan expect from the local authority? Would not a further explanation from the Minister be helpful?

Annette Brooke: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As he says, clause 24 was a welcome step but I do not feel that it is sufficient and I hope the Minister will be able to give us clarification and general support on that point.
	New clause 28 is a probing provision, but it backs the strong cross-party support I felt for the desirability of 18 to 21-year-olds being able to stay on with foster carers. As has already been pointed out, because young people in care are particularly vulnerable and may have missed out on education, they may still need support between the ages of 18 to 21 while they complete education that might in other circumstances have been completed earlier. We all know that the average age for leaving home is now 24I fear from personal circumstances that it is even higher [ Interruption. ] Well, the returns get older and older. The average age first time around is 24, but in foster care it is 16 or 17. I could go on and on about this, but we all felt how desirable it would be to offer the proposed support, when a young person wants it.

Helen Southworth: Does the hon. Lady agree that stable accommodation is absolutely essential for any young person leaving care? Leaving care requires additional support in many ways, so does she believe that Ofsted should have the information she is requesting, to be able to make a satisfactory inspection of the performance of local authorities in supporting care leavers?

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Lady for that extremely helpful intervention. It is always useful when somebody takes something a step further than one had thought about oneself.
	We all accept the desirability of the proposal. We have pilots and I am delighted that there is one Dorset, so I shall have some first-hand information. I understand from the Fostering Network that the statistical returns that local authorities are required to make at present cover supported lodging and ordinary lodging, and there is no definitive category for 19 and 20-year-olds who remain with foster parents. I put it to the Minister that it would be desirable to monitor how many young people are facilitated in staying with foster parents at that older age. It would also be a useful indicator for Ofsted.

John Bercow: I agree with what the hon. Lady said, but I notice that rather self-effacingly she suggested that her new clause was of a probing character. Given that the absence of data and of an obligation to collect such data constitutes a cloak behind which bad practice can be hidden from the public gaze, does she not agree that it is rather important that we adopt the principle that transparencyknowing what the situation iswill be the decisive trigger to spur improved performance in the future?

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Using the word probing does not undermine the importance of the proposal, but I wrote the original amendment myself and did not want to lose my argument because it was technically deficientit is frequently pointed out to me that there is a technical deficiency. I do not really care about the technical deficiency; I think the point is important and I should like the Minister in her response to concentrate on the issue exactly as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	Finally, I sympathise absolutely with the objectives of amendment No. 13, although I am not quite sure about its implementation. Amendment No. 14 is extremely interesting and I shall make a judgment on amendment No. 18 when the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) has spoken to it.

Helen Southworth: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) to her new post as Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. She is joining a team that has proved to be extremely effective in working on behalf of young people. I am sure that she will not only enjoy her position but make an effective contribution to meeting the support needs of young people.
	Government new clause 19 is incredibly welcome on two counts: first, because of how it has been developed, and secondly, because of what it sets out to do. It is extremely important that the people who use services are key in deciding how they are given support. We have seen exemplary practice in the development of the Government's relationship with disabled young people and their families and carers in drawing up the new clause and in the direction of the Bill as a whole. I strongly recommend the methodology employed, which has brought disabled young people and their carers directly into the decision-making process. I recognise how important the measures introduced by the new clause will be to improving the quality of life of young people and their families.
	I shall refer to new clauses 24 and 28 in my comments on amendment No. 18, as the amendment would enable many of the measures in the new clauses to take effect by requiring a local authority to offer the services of an IRO to any relevant child for whom it is responsible. The reason why the amendment is structurally so important in the delivery of the Bill's provisions is that it would make fundamentally clear the right of a looked-after child to remain a looked-after child until an agreement is made that it is in their best interests to move on from looked-after status. It would also ensure that when they make that move, the transition is properly supported by a person who is qualified and experienced and has statutory powers.

Angela Watkinson: Judging by the hon. Lady's comments, I am sure that she agrees with me that putting very young peopleperhaps as young as 16into council tenancies without any support is wholly inappropriate, when they have had a chaotic upbringing and lack the life skills or the self-discipline to live independently. That is precisely the sort of situation we want to avoid. They need real and continuous involvement of a social worker to ensure that they are coping in newly independent circumstances.

Helen Southworth: I am sure that the hon. Lady is as aware as I am of the fact that the majority of young people move into fully independent living at approximately 24. That is not to say that they are incapable of making decisions or acting to support themselves before then; it simply means that young people do not wish to be alone and unsupported. We should not leave unsupported young people who have been in local authority care and who are vulnerable because of that. I agree with her on the principle. Although we might sometimes wonder whether young people are capable of taking on those responsibilities, none of us is capable of living alone, in isolationnone of us is an island.
	Independent reviewing officers are registered social workers who are independent of the management of the looked-after children's cases that they review. They chair all looked-after children's statutory review meetings, and from that position they can identify problems in the children's care and any lack of clarity in the care plan. They therefore have a crucial role in promoting the best interests of the child.
	The Children and Young Persons Bill strengthens and extends the role of the independent reviewing officer by introducing a duty on them to monitor the local authority's performance of its function in relation to a child's case. Amendment No. 18 would place a statutory duty on local authorities to offer the IRO's services in monitoring the care and pathway plans of all young people up to the age of 18, regardless of where they live. That is incredibly important when one considers the young people whom we have identified. They include those who are moving on to independent living and who have lost looked-after status, and those serving a custodial sentence.
	I want to look at the needs of young people aged 16 to 18 who are moving on to independent living, including those to whom the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) referred. What is happening, in practice, to them? Why do the provisions matter? Why is it essential to the success of a pathway that such young people have access to an independent reviewing officer? At the moment, information on how many children become what is known as relevant rather than eligible children is in many ways inadequate, but recent data from the Department for Children, Schools and Families suggest that 26 per cent. of young people leave care in their 16th year, and 19 per cent. leave care in their 17th year. When those people leave care, they are no longer eligible children, but become relevant childrenchildren who, if amendment No. 18 is made, would benefit from an independent reviewing officer. That means that more than 40 per cent. of young people in care would not, as the Bill stands, get the considerable benefit of access to an independent reviewing officer, but would if the amendment were made.
	It is incredibly important to consider what is actually happening to those young people. Young people who leave care at 16 or 17 are likely to be particularly vulnerable. Many of them will have had difficulties with the care environment. They are moving out of support, but sometimes they feel that they are taking a step that gives them some control over their lives. The Rainer Home Alone report published last year says that housing continues to be a problem for those young people. To reiterate the statistics that we heard earlier, it says:
	Almost one third of rough sleepers have experienced local authority care as a child and 61% of young people have moved more than three times since leaving care...16% of care leavers...were not in suitable supported accommodation. This means that...one in six care leavers assessed were not receiving appropriate support with their housing needs.
	The report gives examples of the severity of the processes. One young person was described as experiencing
	frequent harassment and discrimination from other tenants. The worst example saw her burgled and her pets were killed.
	That girl had left care, aged 16, after six and a half years as a looked-after child.
	There is example after example of young people being placed in inappropriate accommodation that does not support their needs. As a Member of Parliament, I have had constituents come to me who needed help because they were placed in unsupported accommodation. Young people have been placed in homelessness units with people who have drug dependencies and criminal records. Young people have been placed in a residential setting with people with whom, when they were looked after, they would not have been allowed to mix. Time and again, we all hear of examples of failures in the system for relevant young people. I am speaking of the experience not of most young people, but of a very sizeable minority. However, there are very vulnerable young people who experience extremely difficultand in some cases dangerousoutcomes. At that stage, what chance do they have to get an education, an apprenticeship or a job? That is the question that the Bill has to address, and this is our opportunity to do so. I hope that in answering the debate, the Minister will give us clear indications about how she will use the Bill and the regulations that support it to make sure that this set of issues is addressed.
	We have to ensure that every young person who leaves care has a full review that determines whether they are a looked-after child or a relevant childwhat category they come into. I hope that the Minister will give a clear indication of how that process will take place and what the role of the independent reviewing officer will be. She has already saidin Committeethat no child would be able to leave a foster care placement or a residential placement for other arrangements without a review case having been held with the independent reviewing officer at which it has been agreed that it is in the best interests of the child to move into the alternative accommodation.
	In addition to that, we need a clear and categorical commitment that no child can leave looked-after status and become a relevant child without a reviewing officer having decided that that is in their best interests. Furthermore, if there is a failure of accommodationbecause it is unsuitable, because it is temporary and permanent accommodation has not become available, because there is some failure in the tenancy or because the young person has problems with family or friends which mean that they need extra supportthere has to be a trigger mechanism that enables them to draw on transitional help, or, if necessary, gives them access to looked-after status again. At the moment, a young person does not have access to an independent reviewing officer when they have left care.

Angela Watkinson: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that there are occasions when a young person is referred by their local authority into a different area and the receiving local authority is not even aware of their presence. That is an obvious opportunity for things to go wrong and for there to be nobody to put the situation right.

Helen Southworth: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There are measures in the Bill that will reduce the number of young people being moved out of area; that is an incredibly important and praiseworthy step. However, there will still be young people who are moved out of area. The hon. Lady has touched on an issue that I wanted to raise: that of young people in custody, who are frequently moved away significantly from their areas.
	The current position is that if a young person moves into custody and is looked-after because of a court order, they will remain in receipt of looked-after status. If they go into custody having been subject to voluntary accommodation they will lose looked-after status at that point. Under the Bill, a young person with looked-after status cannot move into other accommodation and, if we get the commitment from the Minister, cannot lose their looked-after status unless an independent reviewing officer has decided that that is in their best interestsunless they go into custody. The amendment would give a young person in custody access to an independent reviewing officer and would mean that the independent reviewing officer was maintained throughout the process.
	Most significantly, when the young person left custody the independent reviewing officer would have a role in the decision-making process as regards what was suitable accommodation for them. It is essential that we get an agreement from the Minister that relevant young people will have access to an independent reviewing officer. If a young person is to be able to change their way of life on leaving custody, it is essential that they have secure and stable accommodation. I must press the Minister to ensure that they have access to an independent reviewing officer during that process and that they will not lose the entitlement that they would otherwise have had to that officer reviewing the decision on where their accommodation should be when they come out of custody. It seems contrary in the extreme not to give those young people support in finding proper and stable accommodation.
	Will the Minister give full consideration to supporting young people in custody in promoting contact between them and their families? It was exceptionally good to see that new clause 19 will give families proper support by working with disabled young people in retaining their relationships and having good, close contact. Young people in custody will frequently be the parent of the family themselves, so it is particularly important that they have contact and are able to maintain a caring relationship with their child which remains effective when they leave custody.
	I hope that the Minister will clarify the position on visitors for young people in custody. We have seen laudable movements to ensure that disabled young people who are accommodated away from home will have within seven days a visitor who is a qualified social worker. Will the Minister also ensure that young people in custody receive the vital support of a qualified social worker as their visitor and that that visit is made at an early date within a specified time in regulations?
	In relation to the new clause which deals with collecting information, we all know that independent accommodation and supported accommodation are essential to young people. Can we have an assurance that the general duty of a local authority to secure sufficient accommodation is applied equally to other arrangements along with foster care and residential placements? Will the Minister also ensure that national leaving-care accommodation standards are developed and introduced? The foyer movement has been very successful in doing this, as have most universities. In Lancashire, a project has been developed based around the university process for deciding whether accommodation is suitable. It is not beyond our wit to do this, and will the Minister ensure that it is done in regulations?
	In support of the general aim of the new clause, I ask that the Ofsted inspection process, where relevant children and former relevant children up to the age of 21 are accommodated, will have the information that was referred to, to ensure that when inspections are carried out it is possible to see whether the local authority is fulfilling its dutynot whether it transferred a young person to something that was suitable in the first instance, but whether that young person is still in suitable accommodation. That is essential if we are to ensure that every local authority achieves the standards of the best.
	Finally, in reference to every local authority achieving the standards achieved by the best, some authorities are already providing access to an independent reviewing officer to relevant children leaving care. We all wish to see fewer children leaving care before the age of 18. We hope that the Bill will achieve that, but unless it is underpinned by access to a reviewing officer for relevant children by provisions in the Bill or in regulations that create a statutory duty and a right and entitlement for young people, we will find that young people in custody, or those who have moved into independent living where their accommodation has failed, will not get the effective support that they need. We will also find that young people who have moved back to family support or support of that nature, whose accommodation has failed or whose relationships have broken down, do not get the support they need to succeed. They must have access to an independent reviewing officer, so that they have someone speaking on their side, who has the knowledge and skills to do that, but who is part of the statutory framework, to ensure that those young people get the intervention they need to get a successful outcome.

Joan Humble: I would like to add my words of congratulation to my hon. Friend the Minister.
	As someone who did not serve on the Public Bill Committee, I would like to explore the meaning of the new clause a little more. It is clearly welcome because it puts the focus on the needs of disabled children who are placed away from home, and on the importance of families continuing to have links with them. Reference was made to a visitor arriving within seven days. I would like to explore further the role of visitors and how they will communicate with the child and the family. Having met people who act as independent visitors in other circumstances, I found that most of them were qualified social workers. I wonder whether in this instance the individual will be a qualified social worker or will have some other form of expertise. I would like the person to have the ability to communicate with young people, who often find communication difficult. In the case of a young person with a severe disability, or other problems with communicating, it is vital that the visitor has the techniques and methods necessary to communicate so that they can listen to what the young person has to say and be a voice for that young person.
	The thread of independent advocacy will run though my brief contribution. It is important that we remember that the role of the independent advocate is not the same as that of a professional social worker, or a professional in some other realm. I am therefore interested in the way in which the role of the visitor fits into the scenario.
	Will the visitor take on some of the responsibilities that I would expect of an independent advocate: acting as the voice of the child by communicating with the child; finding out whether young people are happy where they are and whether they want to raise any issues; bringing those matters to the attention of the appropriate bodies; and reporting back to the family? Or will the visitor look at the placement more from the point of view of a professional social worker, and examine whether a care planin some cases, a health care planis being properly followed? The young person and the family will need a clear idea of who the individual is and how that person fits in with other people with whom they may have been involved before the child is placed away from home.
	There are too many cases of severely disabled children being placed a substantial distance from home and finding themselves unable to communicate properly with the people who care for them. They are miles away from the family, who often cannot afford to travel to visit, so the children are outside the protection of people who should be there to undertake it.
	I hope that the new clause can properly reassure me and parents, and, above all, act in the best interests of the child. As framed, it seems to do that, but I would like more detail about the role of the visitor.
	I have similar comments for my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) about amendment No. 18. She made important points about the role of the independent reviewing officer, who has a clear statutory function, which can be essential in the scenario that she outlined, whereby young people of 16 and over need support in accommodation and to consider their education and their future. However, those young people could also benefit from an independent advocate, who is not part of the statutory system. When the Minister responds to that amendment, I hope that she will also consider the wider network that young people may need at such a difficult time in their lives.
	Although accommodation may be available for those young people, how much of it is suitable? In Blackpool, we have a lot of private rented accommodation, but not all of it is suitable for vulnerable young people without the support of professionals, who can offer advice and guidance and be at the end of the phone. Again, we could consider independent advocacy alongside the role of the professional to ensure that the voice of the child is properly heard.
	I want to comment briefly on new clause 26, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) tabled. He began his contribution by referring to independent advocacy. I do not doubt that he is right that statutory access to independent advocacy is more than simply a complaints procedure because the Minister's predecessor and his officials told me the same thing. However, that does not apply in practice. The extent of independent advocacy varies around the country, as does the extent to which local authorities use it.
	I have had several meetings with appropriate officers in Blackpool council to discuss that very issue. Earlier this year, they tightened their rules for contracting for independent advocacy services, reducing the number of young people who had an entitlement to independent advocacy. Advocacy services of course have to be paid for, and it is important that we as legislators clarify the circumstances in which local authorities contract for such services, in order to ensure that as many young people as possible get the service that they require.

David Kidney: That is why I thought it important that the Minister of State put on record in Committee the statement that she did and why I have repeated it today. I hope that it will help my hon. Friend to show those words to the officials in Blackpool and that they realise that they have to do better.

Joan Humble: I knew that my hon. Friend was right, but other people need to know that he is right and to hear the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am currently in discussions with Blackpool council about producing a leaflet on the services that should be available for young people in care. I want included an explicit reference to independent advocacy, as well as guidance to young people about what that advocacy service should deliver for them.
	My hon. Friend raises an important point about family and friends with his new clause 26. There cannot be a Member in the House who has not been approached by family membersespecially grandparents, but sometimes also the wider family, such as siblingswho have put themselves forward to look after a brother, sister or other member of the family. We have to remember, thinking back to the Children Act 1989, which was passed by a Conservative Government, that local authorities should be looking for good enough parenting. We are not asking for people to be super-duper marvellous parents; we are looking for parenting that is good enough.
	More often than not, the grandparent or other member of the family, or a friend, can provide that good enough parenting. There are, of course, examples of where they do notsometimes the child is in care because of an entirely dysfunctional family, and that can include the wider family. However, local authorities should at least explore whether there is somebody in the immediate family network who can provide that good enough parenting and support for a young person.
	I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's comments about the amendments. The Bill is excellent as it stands and, in moving new clause 19, she has strengthened it hugely. The comments that we have heard from all parts of the Chamber were from individuals who care passionately about young people who are looked after in the care system. We want to ensure that by the time the Bill leaves this place, it is in its best possible form, to protect those vulnerable young people.

Joan Ryan: I join others in welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to her new responsibilities. It is clear from the way in which she moved new clause 19 that she will not be lacking in commitment on these issues.
	I spoke on Second Reading and want to refer back to that debate and to talk about new clause 28. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) described it as a probing amendment. I listened to her remarks in response to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and thought that they were well made.
	I am sure that all hon. Members will remember a lobby by many foster carers on the day of that Second Reading debate. A number of foster carers from my constituency came to speak to me. Like me, they welcomed the Bill. I still hold that warm welcome for it and the measures within it, but it is right that we probe some of the issues.
	I have been impressed by the contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House who considered the Bill in Committee. It sounds as though it was thoroughgoing consideration, with a great deal of knowledge being brought to bear, and I am sorry that I was unable to be part of it.
	On Second Reading, I raised issues about the staying put pilots and young people being able to remain in their foster placement beyond the age of 17. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was very encouraging about those concerns, finding a more flexible way forward, including the Government's commitment to enable young people to remain in their placement and not have to move on at 17. All of us, I think, have had briefings on the fact that, apparently, the average age for young people to leave home these days is 24, although there are people with 30-year-olds still at home. However, that is clearly not the case for young people in care or in foster care.
	We have been provided with statistics in various helpful briefings, and they are quite shocking. For example,
	statistical returns suggest that no more than 280 young people are still living with their foster carers when they are nineteen...It is estimated that for 3,000 young people leaving care at 16 or 17, foster care is their final placement.
	That cannot be a good way to help those young people to find the best way forward and fulfil their potential. I am pleased that the Government are committed to dealing with that, but I return to the issue that is raised in new clause 28.
	It is important that we have good, solid statistical information that guides us in policy. I am sure that we will return to these issues in years to come if, as I understand they are, the Government are seeking in their guidance and through the pilots to extend young people's ability to remain in their foster placement until the age of 21. As I said, the average age for leaving home is 24, so inevitably these issues will have to be looked at again as time moves on and as circumstances change.
	If we are talking about young people staying in education and training until they are 18 and wanting to increase the number of young people in higher education, we want to do that as much for those in foster placements and in care as we do for all others. Statistical information is important in guiding policy, butthe hon. Gentleman made this point to the hon. Ladywe need to ensure that local authorities cannot hide behind the fact that there is not such information. This is a useful probing new clause, and I am sure that the Minister has some insights that she will share with us and that will reassure us on those matters.
	I want to make another point that returns and is related to the issue of placement with family and friends, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members. I notice that a briefing refers to the 2005 Farmer and Moyers report to the Department for Education and Skills entitled Children Placed with Family and Friends: Placement Patterns and Outcomes. It tells us:
	Evidence also suggests
	that is a worrying phrase as it suggests to me that we do not have enough evidence
	that family and friends placements are considered by local authorities in only 57 per cent. of placements, despite the existing duty set out in Section 23(6) of the Children Act 1989.
	It is worrying that a duty already exists in law but is not being followed. What can we achieve through guidance that will ensure that that duty is met? If local authorities are already flouting the law, how will we ensure that consideration is given to placing children with family and friends? That relates to the previous point, because without clear duty guidance and monitoring, some local authoritiesnot all by any meanswill find their way around the measures, which are intended to benefit the children and young people involved, and therefore the wider community as well.
	I welcome many of the Government's measures, and I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for further clarification on such points when she responds.

Siobhain McDonagh: Unlike my right hon. Friend, I am not so much impressed by the contributions from Members on the Committee as fearful about whether they will accept some comments from a complete novice in this regard.
	I come to the matter after having my ears firmly bashed by Merton Mencap only last week about guidance and legislation from Government that is not fully implemented, or not implemented in the spirit intended, by local authorities. Like many hon. Members, I spent a long time as a councillorin the London borough of Mertonbefore becoming an MP. London boroughs are particularly hard-pressed with regard to accommodation. My experience is that there is generally war between social services and housing about who gets access to what. Although new clause 19 rightly argues that every local authority
	shall make provision for such services as they consider appropriate to be available,
	the devil is in the word appropriate. What is appropriate to social services is often not appropriate to housing.
	My experience as a local MP is that those who wish to be foster carers, who might be friends or family members of the children concerned, are often prevented from doing so because their accommodation is not large enough to take on a number of siblings together, although, as a layperson, one would imagine that that might be the most appropriate option. In my local authority, the criteria for housing register and transfer applications do not take fostering issues into account at all, but are based only on current accommodation with current family and medical needs. A person's desire to become a foster carer does not therefore raise them up the list, making it less likely that social services will consider that they might provide good foster care. In spite of the pleadings of social services to that end, most housing departments, because of the pressure on them, are unwilling to concede to further demands.
	I am also struck by the significance of the word appropriate in relation to housing for young people who have been in care, and the suggestion that most young people leave their foster homes at 16 or 17 to go into independent accommodation. I would argue that few 16 or 17-year-olds, whether they have been in foster care and had a difficult childhood and adolescence or whether they have had the most fantastic family background, would take well to independent accommodation on their own, especially on some of the large estates in which young people are housed in London. As for the one-bedroomed flats available in my borough where such young people are likely to be housed, one would not want to see them housed there at 30 or 40, let alone at 16 or 17.
	While I quite understand that most 16 or 17-year-olds would love flats of their own, that is not necessarily the appropriate or the right route. It is, however, the answer that local authority housing departments often come up with, because it is easier than providing more spacious accommodation to enable young people to stay with their foster carers. I should like Ministers to establish, in the guidance that will be provided if the new clauses are passed, how we can beef up the word appropriate and ensure that young people are not given the least attractive and least wanted accommodation.
	I should also like to know how we will finance that. All the foster carers I have known have been amazed at the amount of cash that is available to young people and not available to their own children. That too motivates the desire of young people who are being fostered to seek independent or separate accommodation, against their own long-term interests. I think that, when viewing local authorities as a corporate whole, we should appreciate that the departments that make up a local authority often have very different drivers and very different problems.

Edward Timpson: Having served on the Committee, I continue to welcome the thrust of the Bill. It is certainly a step in the right direction.
	I want to comment on two of the new clauses, beginning with new clause 24. There is still an anomaly that is failing vulnerable children. As recently as April 2005, Mr. Justice Munby said in a ruling that local authorities' plans for looked-after children in prison were little more than worthless. We must think about the level at which we start, and what we need to do to achieve what such children deserve.
	We know from speaking to children in custodyand I know from my experience of dealing with children in the youth justice system in Cheshirethat they value the relationship that they have with a social worker, particularly the individual meetings to discuss private issues that they cannot share with anyone else. Maintaining the stability of such support is essential.
	At present there are two separate organisations, the Youth Justice Board and the looked-after children's services, which are not working together in planning the future of children in care and in custody but working in parallel, and the youth justice system dominates the process. Those who speak to social workers will find that many are very confused about their role in relation to children in care and custody. We need to put that right, and to give social workers a key role in children's lives while they are in custody. They need to fit seamlessly into the process, and to work along with the youth justice system to ensure positive outcomes for children in care and custody, rather than the poor outcomes that we are currently seeing. At present, we see placement breakdowns after custody, high reoffending rates and missed education and employment opportunities, often when children are at the most critical stage of their childhood.
	I urge the Minister to consider that issue carefully. The new clause gives the Government a chance to put the anomaly right, and to ensure that the children who, in many respects, are perhaps the most vulnerable in the custody system have the support that they require and deserve as looked-after children, which is what they should be. The section 20 voluntary accommodation must be put into the same category for looked-after children in custody as for all other children who are placed under section 31 care orders. The children require that, and we need to deliver.

David Kidney: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but when I went to see the Staffordshire Safeguarding Children Board, I saw a seamless service between the child protection people from the social services of the local authority and the youth offending team members. Is that his experience in Cheshire?

Edward Timpson: There are YOT teams and children's services teams that work well together, and Staffordshire is a good example. In Cheshire, there have been improvements in that regard but they have been achieved by the efforts of those services, rather than as a result of their being required to work together. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that those services work seamlessly in the best interests of the child, rather than the two agencies trying to work together off their own bats. I take what the hon. Gentleman says at face value. That good practice needs to be spread around all local authorities and the best way to do that is through this legislation.
	May I speak briefly on new clause 26 about support to families and friends? Despite the improvements made through the public law outline to involve families with children who are on the edge of care, there is still the problem of children who tip over into care before the family are involved in the process. In a case in which I was involved it was not until the guardian who had been appointed during care proceedings stepped in towards the end of those proceedings to call a family group conference that it became apparent that the extended family, working as a unit, could provide the necessary level of care and support for those children, who otherwise would have been taken into long-term fostering or into an adoptive placement.
	We need to ensure that social workers work with families from an earlier stage to identify where the problems are, and to ensure that members of the extended family understand the nature of the problems within the family with which the local authority is dealing. In that way, we can act earlier and prevent a last-minute effort to bring about a family solution to the problem. Therefore, I support new clause 26 and urge the Minister to think carefully about how that will ensure that children who are on the edge of care do not tip over the edge unnecessarily.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We have heard a lot about this large and varied group of amendments. To respond to all the points will be quite a challenge, but I will do my best. As I said earlier, the amendments relate to three different groups of children, including those children placed in accommodation arranged under the health and education legislation. At the outset, I explained the package of measures that the Government are taking, including through amendments, to improve services for that vulnerable group. As I said, that package was developed with the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign, which has welcomed the Government's approach.
	When we were discussing those amendments, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) had a question about the notification of placements made by health and education bodies and how we were going to ensure that that happened properly. New guidance relating to that provision will set out the expectations on the authorities when children are placed outside their own responsible authority. The hon. Lady is right that we need to ensure that local authorities are aware of their new duties and that they happen on the ground. I look forward to working on the implementation plan because legislation is just the guidance and the start of improving practice on the ground.
	Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked questions about visits by social workers. The hon. Lady asked whether the visits would be conducted by a qualified social worker with experience of working with disabled children. We want to ensure that those visitors have the right skills and experience to provide the support that children need. That is why the Bill lists a requirement that local authorities satisfy themselves that the individual who makes the visit has the necessary skills and experience. It is our policy intention that it should be qualified social workers who carry out those visits, but we accept that there may be circumstances where that is not possible, so we do not want to introduce regulations with which we know that local authorities will be unable to comply. That is an issue for guidance and I commit to consult interested parties before we finalise it. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) also wanted the role of the visitor to be fleshed out, and I hope I can satisfy her that we will be able to do that in the guidance.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke about the availability of professionals and the shortage of social workers and asked what we were going to do about that. We have commissioned the Children's Workforce Development Council to address a number of measures that we hope will enable us to recruit social workers faster and to hold on to those we have.
	On looked-after children and those living with family, friends and carers, the proposed amendments try to tackle issues of practice. I understand the concerns but I want to demonstrate that we plan to address them at a more practical level. I should also like to remind hon. Members that much of what is asked for in the amendments is already in the Bill. Amendment No. 13 relates to placement stability, which is essential if looked-after children are to thrive and achieve. It is particularly important that we minimise disruptions through the two years of key stage 4, especially if they also lead to changes of school. Most children who are looked after for more than a year stay in the same placement. However, we want to increase the proportion of children in long-term stable care placements because we know that these lead to the best outcomes. We also want to reduce further the minority of looked-after children who have more than three placements each year. Both of the measures are part of the national indicator set for local authorities.
	Clause 9 sets out the key considerations in determining the most appropriate placement for the child and includes the specific requirement that the local authority must ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, in all circumstances of the case that the placement does not disrupt the child's educational training at any stage in the child's educational career. The provision goes much further than the proposed amendment as it is not limited to disruption in year 11. We are also taking powers to make regulations to require a local authority to take prescribed steps before making any decision concerning a child's placement if he or she is at key stage 4, which includes years 10 and 11. We will use the power to require a full statutory review of the child's care plan whenever any unplanned change is proposed that would have the effect of disrupting their education, including consultation with the designated teacher at those schools.
	We will also make it clear in the new statutory guidance to independent reviewing officers that part of their new role will be to provide a real challenge to social workers' placement decisions, including changes of placement, to ensure that they are made in the child's best interests and that the child has been properly involved in the decision.
	However, we must ensure that the target of no more than three placements in one year does not create perverse incentives. The absence of placement breakdown does not automatically mean that the child is happy and in the best placement. It may be important for some children to be moved into a short-term treatment programme as a means to enabling them to find permanence in the future. For other children, a placement move may be about a trial return home to parents while on a care order. Finally, placement changes are already required to be recorded within the child's care plan. I do not accept that the requirement for a written explanation of placement moves as proposed in the amendment will add anything to the current requirements.
	Amendment No. 14 is on a similar theme, as it seeks to increase the availability of foster care placements by ensuring that children's services are working with their colleagues in housing services to develop a strategy to maximise the availability. Many hon. Members spoke about that link. A potential benefit of an authority having sufficient foster placements would be a reduced risk of needing to disrupt education or training. Local authorities need to think strategically about the need for placements in their area and how best to address any shortages. That is why we have included clause 10, which places a new general duty on local authorities to take steps to secure, so far as reasonably practical, sufficient accommodation within their area that meets the needs of the children they look after.
	Let me take this opportunity to put on record the fact that the duty to secure sufficient accommodation applies to children's homes, foster care placements and other arrangements, such as supported lodgings and semi-independent accommodation, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDongah). In order to discharge this new duty, local authorities will have to, among other things, conduct assessments of local need, both existing and potential, and establish the extent to which those needs can be met through existing placements. They must then take action to address shortages of any particular type of accommodation in their area. My hon. Friend also raised an issue about disabled facilities grants, and the child health strategy, which we will publish shortly, will recognise the importance of joint working and ensuring disabled facilities grants are seen as part of the overall resources for children, and not just in a housing department silo.

Helen Southworth: My hon. Friend made a very welcome statement about accommodation and the duty on local authorities to make other arrangements to ensure they have suitable and sufficient accommodation. Will she confirm that she will work on a national standards set for that accommodation so that local authorities can indeed ensure that other accommodation is suitable and adequate?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Our current consultation on guidance and regulations is in part addressing that particular issue about the suitability of accommodation and trying to set down what that means in practice.
	As I have said, in order to discharge this new duty, local authorities will have to conduct assessments. We will provide statutory guidance on the steps required by local authorities that will in particular emphasise the need for children's services to work with providers and all relevant partners, especially housing and planning services to maximise available accommodation within the area.

Joan Humble: For some small local authorities, such as Blackpool which is a unitary authority, it can be difficult to provide the range of accommodation they need for young people. Will my hon. Friend therefore look to ensure that local authorities work with their neighbouring authorities so that if they cannot provide the accommodation directly within their boundary it will at least be provided within the neighbourhood and not 100 miles away?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That is something we will have to consider, and that was a problem with the amendment because not all authorities that provide children's services also have housing services under their jurisdiction. We must take it into account that there are unitary authorities who do both, but in many cases housing is provided by district authorities and children's services by the larger metropolitans.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggested it might be a probing amendment, so I hope I might have said enough for him to feel able to withdraw it.
	I now want to respond to new clause 26, which proposes a new support service for kinship carers and goes much further than can be justified. It would give a blank cheque to kinship carers, requiring local authorities to provide financial support to arrangements where the local authority may have had no prior involvement with the child or his family, and even if the local authority considered the placement to be unsuitable or had concerns about the carer's capacity to care for the child. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 already places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children's needs. If it is consistent with their duty to safeguard and promote the child's welfare, the local authority must provide services to promote the upbringing of the child by his family. Family and friends carers must be considered for services under section 17 where the child is a child in needin other words, their health or development is at riskin exactly the same way that parents should be considered for services.
	Clause 9 replaces section 23 of the 1989 Act with proposed new section 22C. It requires the local authority to consider placements in the following order of priority: first, the parent; secondly, the preference must be given to placement with a relative, friend or other person connected with the child who is a local authority foster parent. I can assure the House that our care planning regulations will continue the current emergency provision allowing temporary approvals pending full assessment of the relative's suitability to foster. We expect more relative carers to receive financial and other support from local authorities under section 17, where that is needed, but we must be very careful not to undermine our policies on early intervention by offering greater support to those caring for a relative's child than to parents who are struggling to care for their own child. At all costs, we must not introduce perverse incentives for parents to renege on their responsibilities to children, or for families to collude in alternative care arrangements because there is a perceived financial benefit. Family and friends carers are entitled to a range of other financial supports and benefits such as child benefit and child tax credit, both of which are unaffected by any payments made under section 17, on broadly the same terms as parents.
	As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole noted, we are already seeking through clause 24 of this Bill to amend section 17(6) of the 1989 Act, which restricts the making of financial payments to exceptional circumstances. The amendment will give local authorities a wider discretion and enable them to provide financial support on a longer-term basis, where they are satisfied that doing so would safeguard and promote the child's welfare.
	Equally, however, we are concerned to ensure that local authorities do not have perverse incentives to rely on family and friends to avoid responsibility where a child's needs are such that they should be met through the provision of care and accommodation. As hon. Members know, it is our policy that children should not cease to be looked after simply because they have been placed in the extended family. Clause 9 of the Bill addresses that issue.
	However, we all agree that more must be done to increase the involvement of family and friends in caring for children who cannot live with their parents, and that one of the keys to achieving this goal is to improve the services and support for family and friends carers. That is why we have committed to developing a new framework for family and friends carers in order to address the current lack of local policy frameworks on this most important issue, the unacceptable variations in levels of support and services between authorities, and the need for transparency and equity in relation to services and support for these carers.
	The framework will be issued as part of the revised Children Act 1989 statutory guidance, under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. New clause 26 is intended to ensure that local authorities consider the needs of family and friends carers as well as the needs of the children whom they care for, which of course we support. However, we do not consider that the proposed amendment is a necessary or appropriate way to drive forward improvements, for the reasons I have given.
	We now come to the three amendmentsamendment No. 18, and new clauses 24 and 28that relate to care leavers. In different ways, they are all intended to ensure that these young people get the support that they need. I shall deal first with amendment No. 18, which has to do with relevant children. In future, there will be a presumption that children will continue to be looked after up to the age of 18 and that there will rarely be good reasons for a local authority to cease looking after a child before he or she turns 18. Therefore, it is Government policy that relevant children will become a residual category of children. We shall set out explicitly in the new single set of care planning regulations that a local authority cannot move a looked-after child to independent living arrangements without first conducting a statutory review of the care plan and that, where such a move take places, it does not automatically result in the child leaving care. That is an entirely separate decision that must also be reviewed.
	The role of the independent reviewing officer in each case will be to challenge local decisions to ensure that the social worker has made a proper assessment and that any decision promotes the welfare of the child. The IRO, for example, will want to be satisfied that the accommodation is genuinely suitable, and we will use statutory guidance to set out our expectation that the social worker and child should visit the proposed accommodation before the decision is made.
	That will stop the current poor practice in local authorities that means that a child is placed in independent living arrangements without review and/or is automatically deemed to have left care at the same time. That poor practice is a misunderstanding of the current legislative framework. Clause 9 of the Bill, regulation-making powers and the revised Children Act statutory guidance, give us a review mechanism to correct that. So, in future, there may still be a small number of cases where a review of the young person's case endorses the social worker's assessment that that young person's welfare would be promoted by the young person leaving care because he or she is ready and wants to take on the challenge of living more independently. In such cases, current legislation requires a pathway plan to be developed, following an assessment of need, and a personal adviser to be appointed to oversee the implementation of the plan before the child ceases to be looked after. The pathway plan must be reviewed at least once every six months, and more often if the personal adviser or child requests it.
	While we cannot accept amendment No. 18, as the independent reviewing officer has no statutory functions in relation to relevant children, we will set out in statutory guidance that the child should be offered an independent person to oversee the review. That could be their former IRO, or it could be an opportunity for the young person to conduct the review themselves with the support of an advocateperhaps the independent advocate mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. We will include in regulations a requirement that relevant children should be regularly visited where they are living by their personal adviser to enable identification

Helen Southworth: My hon. Friend referred to a visit to be made to relevant children by their personal adviser. Will that person be a qualified social worker?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I mentioned earlier that we would consider suitability in relation to previous visits, and we will look at that issue when we consult on the guidance. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to contribute to that discussion.
	When the personal adviser visits, they will be able to respond to any change in circumstance or need, including whether the accommodation remains appropriate. We will explore, with the help of stakeholders, how we could provide more definition of what constitutes suitable accommodation in the revised statutory guidance. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will accept my assurances on this point and withdraw her amendment.
	New clause 24 specifically focuses on care leavers who have been looked after before they enter custody. These children are a very vulnerable group and we know that they can face many serious practical difficulties re-establishing themselves in their local communities when they are released from custody. In previous debates in this House and in the other place, we have set out how we intend to ensure that those children will get the support that they need, in exactly the same way as we will ensure that those in custody who are the subject of a care order and those in custody who are relevant children get the support they too need.
	I am aware that, notwithstanding our assurances, doubts remain about the entitlements of children who were voluntarily accommodated and who ceased to be looked-after children once they were admitted to custody. I hope that what I will say on this subject today will allay those concerns once and for all. It is important to understand that the scheme of part 3 of the Children Act 1989 is that the duties of local authorities depend largely on the nature of the services provided. So the duties to children whose needs can be met while living with their families are different to the duties that the local authority owes to children for whom it provides accommodation, thereby to a greater or lesser extent assuming the role of the parent.
	The particular duties around care planning, including arrangements for contact and to address the child's health and educational needs, are all intimately related to the placement decision, and the Secretary of State's powers to regulate the local authority's decisions in these respects are all part of those placement arrangements. This reflects the practical reality that once the local authority does not have the function of deciding where the child is to live, it has limited powers to make other arrangements for the child. Thus, in the case of a voluntarily accommodated child, the child ceases to be looked after as soon as the parents take the child home, a practical recognition of the fact that the local authority does not share parental responsibility for this group of children and that the local authority's powers to be further involved in the child's life are necessarily limited.
	Once a voluntarily accommodated child goes into custody, it is the youth justice services that have statutory responsibilities to promote and safeguard the child's welfare and to make appropriate provision to meet the child's educational and health care needs while he is serving his sentence. However, we recognise that children's social care needs do not cease when they enter custody. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) mentioned family contact. I shall get back to my hon. Friend, as I seem to have lost my notes on that point, but it is our intention to try to ensure that we have the maximum family contact. Many of the points she made were extremely valid.
	Our youth crime action plan sets out our commitments to promote the positive development of young people in custody, to tackle underachievement in education, to promote family links and make sure that young people are prepared for their return to the community from the very start of their sentence. To improve the education and training of children in custody we have made it clear that we intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity to make local authorities responsible for securing the provision of education for all young people in custody, regardless of their background. That will help to ensure that young people's education, so far as is practical, meets their needs and matches that of children and young people in mainstream education.

Tim Loughton: I am listening to what the hon. Lady says, but I should like more assurances to acknowledge that there are particular conditions when more intensive support provided by visiting social workers and other professionals is necessary, above and beyond what a prison or youth offender institute may be able to offer. That may involve judging the appropriateness of the youth offender institute or prison, which may not be the best place to cater for the special needs of a person coming out of care. They may have special educational needs or require various rehabilitation services. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but there is a specific role that the social worker and other people from the local authority could play if the status of looked-after child in care was kept while they were in custody.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The hon. Gentleman's point is similar to the one raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson), who is no longer in the Chamber. His perception was that there was not a joined-up service and that there was a breakdown between the youth justice system and children's services. We are determined to have effective co-ordination of services, with shared support, and we want to make sure that really happens. I shall come to how we shall do it a little later on.
	The question we are addressing at the moment is the extent to which the local authority can contribute meaningfully while the child is serving their sentence and, more important, the best means of engaging children's social services in effective planning with the youth offending team to ensure that the child's needs are met on release, particularly where there are doubts about whether it will be possible or appropriate for the child to return to their family. I have already referred to the visiting duty in clause 16. We shall use the powers to prescribe the functions of the person making the visit, which will include assessing the child's needs and liaising with the responsible youth offending team and youth custody services. The process will ensure that the local authority is aware of the resettlement services that the child will need, and of plans to ensure that the services are in place when the child is released from custody. We will make it clear through statutory guidance that the local authority must consider in particular the child's needs for appropriate and suitable accommodation, and whether the child will need to be looked after again when they leave custody.
	The approach we propose to the issues raised by the provision is proportionate and flexible. The local authority's role in visiting former looked-after children in custody will be in addition to the role of the separate YOT worker responsible for planning how the child will serve the rest of their sentence in the community. The introduction of the visiting requirement puts in place an essential safeguard, so that former looked-after children in custody are not forgotten by the authority previously responsible for their care. During the period when they are in custody, even though they are not formally looked after, the authority will have to keep them in mind, maintain a relationship with them and contribute to planning for their future.
	We are firmly determined to offer former looked-after children in custody the right kind of support to remove the cliff-edge approach to planning for their accommodation and support faced by some young people on release. I give the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that assurance. I know he has already signalled his intention to push the provision to a vote, but I hope I may have

Tim Loughton: indicated dissent.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I tried.
	The final amendment I shall speak to is new clause 28I am sure Members will be relieved to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Many Members expressed concern about the age at which young people leave foster care. Our staying put pilots are designed to identify all the practical and financial barriers that inhibit care leavers from remaining with former foster carers, so that as far as possible care leavers have the opportunity to remain with their foster family. If, as we hope and expect, the pilots demonstrate improved outcomes for care leavers, we hope to take action in the next comprehensive spending review period, so that any care leavers who choose may have a reasonable expectation that they can remain in a family placement.
	We keep comprehensive data on all looked-after children up to age 18. We also have an established data set that is focused on the accommodation of care leavers at age 19 who had been looked-after at age 16. Those data sets are established statistical collections; local authorities already have systems in place to collect the information. We do not currently collect any information on the accommodation of care leavers at age 20. If the amendment were accepted, it would be necessary for every local authority to establish a completely new process to collect that information, which would represent a new, uncosted burden on every local authority at a time when my Department is reviewing the number of data collections.
	I understand why there is a wish to collect data on the number of young people who remain with former foster carers, and it would be possible to analyse existing data sets to establish an indication of the number of 19-year-olds benefiting from that accommodation option. I can also confirm that we will give serious consideration to amending the categories in our existing statistics collection from 2010 to highlight placement with former foster carers as a separate accommodation option for care leavers at age 19, as it would undoubtedly be useful for each local authority to have information on the accommodation provided to all their care leavers, including information on the number remaining with former foster carers. I hope that hon. Members accept the difficulties that would be caused by introducing an uncosted new burden on local authorities by requiring them to contribute to an additional national data collection.
	I have covered a great deal of ground. I hope that the hon. Members who tabled the amendments feel that I have responded to their concerns and that my arguments have persuaded them not to press them to a vote.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7
	  
	Registration scheme in England and Wales

'(1) The Children Act 2004 (c.31) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 45(1) (power to establish registration scheme in England) for may substitute shall within one year of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 being passed.
	(3) In section 46(1) (power to establish registration scheme in Wales) for may substitute shall within one year of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 being passed.
	(4) Omit section 47 (expiry of powers in sections 45 and 46).'. [Tim Loughton.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 13 Registration of foster carers with the General Social Care Council
	'In section 55(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) after subsection (2)(d) insert or
	(e) is a foster parent'.
	New clause 23 Foster charters
	'Local authorities must publish a charter for foster carers
	(1) to establish the authority's responsibilities with regard to the foster carers within its authority;
	(2) to have special regard to the needs of kinship carers.'.

Tim Loughton: The last group took only just over three hours; let us see whether we can do a bit better on this group. We have also been through three Deputy Speakers. I am sure that you will be more resilient, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	New clause 7 brings a severe sense of dj vu. I am sure that all hon. Members who have been involved in the Committee on the Bill, and in previous Committees dealing with children's affairs, will agree. We debated in Committee the measure to promote a scheme for the registration of private foster carers. We tabled amendments that would have struck out what was then clause 15, which extended the time limit in section 47 of the Children Act 2004, which would have brought in a private fostering registration scheme four years after that Act came into forcein November this year, I believe. Through the Bill, the Government are extending by a further three years the sunset clause that accompanied the enabling provision. As a result, we may not see a scheme for the registration of private foster carers introduced until 2011seven years after the coming into force of the 2004 Act.
	New clause 7 would amend sections 45 to 47 of the Children Act 2004 to allow a scheme for the registration of private foster carers to be brought in forthwith, so that we do not have to wait yet more years for the Government to enable it to be introduced. Many Members from Opposition parties, including meand indeed some Government Membersare genuinely confused by the Government's continued dithering over bringing in a scheme that has been called for by many organisations and professionals involved with child protection issues.
	I should like to echo comments that I made in Committee, and the countless speeches that various hon. Members, some present today, have made over the past few years on the need for a private fostering registration scheme. I refer the House to the 1997 Utting report People Like Us, which recommended a private fostering registration scheme. I refer hon. Members to the work of the UK Joint Working Party on Foster Care in 1999, which revealed the high potential for abuse and neglect and urged regulation of private fostering in a public awareness campaign. I refer hon. Members to the Laming report that was produced in the wake of the Victoria Climbi tragedy; it recommended a review of the private fostering system. I refer hon. Members to my own modest ten-minute Bill, introduced on 19 March 2003, which contained three provisions, one of which would have instituted a private fostering registration scheme.
	There were also cross-party attempts to bring in the scheme straight away under what was then the Children Bill in 2004. The proposal was supportedand voted for, no lessby the then Labour Member for Lancaster and Wyre, Hilton Dawson, who was well versed in the issues. It is therefore inexplicable to many of us why the Government have avoided supporting a measure on which there is broad consensus; people involved in children's issues, adoption and fostering have for some time said that it is highly necessary. We are confounded as to why the Government have still not gone through with it.
	In the years during which we have called for such a scheme, there has been extensive regulation of child mindingthat registration scheme has enjoyed a degree of successand all sorts of standards for the inspection of care homes and fostering agencies have been introduced. There are numerous new adoption rights and requirements, and hundreds of thousands of people who deal with young people have become subject to Criminal Records Bureau checks, including me. We have even considered legislation to clamp down on puppy farming, but still we have not introduced a registration scheme for private fostering.
	We are talking about potentially vulnerable children, and people who are unknown to local social services departments. There can be no guarantee of equality of care, and no guarantee that people are accessing appropriate training, support and benefits. There is no control over the number of placements that a child will experience. That all has ramifications for the safety, welfare and well-being of children in private fostering arrangements. We have no accurate measure of the extent of such arrangements, although some years ago it was estimated that there are in excess of 10,000 private foster care arrangements in this country. They disproportionately involve children coming from west Africa, particularly Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast, which is where Victoria Climbi came from, although she came via France.
	I am sure that a large majority of private foster carers do a good job and pose no threat to their charges, but we simply do not know. We have no idea of the extent of the problem, because the Department of Heath stopped collecting data back in 1991, as the figures were so inaccurate. Since 1991, regulations have brought in local registers of foster carers, but there is no real legal penalty for not registering, and many people are ignorant of the requirements.
	As I say, the Government introduced legislation that would enable a private fostering registration scheme to be set up. It was to come into force after a certain period unless a good reason why it should not be introduced was found; hence the sunset clause. The Government intend to extend the sunset clause by means of the Bill, but what has changed since the Children Act 2004 that requires the terms of the sunset clause to be extended yet further? What have the Government found out since then that has convinced them to extend the sunset clause, which prevents the coming into force of a private fostering registration scheme, and what do we need to know to clear that hurdle and trigger the coming into force of the scheme?
	In one of his weaker moments, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), formerly the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families, came up with some very unconvincing reasons why the Government needed to do yet more research. I do not think that his heart was in it when he opposed the measure. There are still no specifics about what research would be required before the Government could make a definitive decision to go ahead with such a scheme.
	We believe that the sunset clause was a sop; the fact that the Government now seek to extend it without good reason goes to prove that. It is a sop to mention the issue without having any real inclination to do anything about it. That is what I charged the Minister who had responsibility for children in 2004 with, and nothing has happened to negate that charge. In 2004, in saying that she wanted to beef up the notification scheme, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who was then the Minister with responsibility for children, admitted:
	I think that the notification scheme is not working well.
	We all agreed with that. But she went on to say, in support of the sunset clause:
	The clause is in the Bill because we want to strengthen the scheme and give it one last chance to work.[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 285-88.]
	That was the last chancein 2004. Now, apparently, there is to be another last chance. The Government must make their case properly and justify why the sunset is proving to be very long indeed. Will we ever see the dawn of a private fostering registration scheme, which so many of us have wanted for so many years? I am at a loss to see how the notification scheme can have been deemed a success.
	At the end of March last year, the last year for which we have figures, roughly 1,250 children were reported as having been cared for and accommodated in private fostering arrangements in England, and 1,010 such arrangements ended during the previous year. That is well short of the 10,000 or so private fostering arrangements that are estimated to exist, and we still do not know who is involved in the arrangements.
	Another reason for beefing up the provision in 2004 was to publicise the existence of notification schemes and the legal requirement to register with them. Back in 2005,  The Voice carried out a survey that particularly focused on black private fostering arrangements in London, in respect of which there have been problems, of which the Victoria Climbi case was just one example. That survey found that 35 per cent. of the respondentsonly a thirdknew about private fostering. Some 21 per cent. of the respondents were from Africa, and although 31 per cent. of those said that they knew about private fostering, only half knew what it actually meant. Some 35 per cent. of respondents said that they knew about private fostering, but when they were probed further it was found that only 15 per cent. knew what it was about. There was a pretty low recognition level, particularly among that key target client group.
	Part of the raison d'tre behind the changes made by the Minister in charge of the Children Bill in 2004 was to promote better awareness. Local authorities were charged with making potential or existing private fosterers in their areas aware of the requirements to register under the scheme. However, in January this yearfour years onthe British Association for Adoption and Fostering, or BAAF, carried out a further survey of Londoners and came up with an even worse result, which showed that few professionals working with children understand what private fostering is. In a YouGov survey that used an even bigger sample than the original one, adults living in London were asked what they thought a child being privately fostered meant. They were offered a series of possible answers. Only 18 per cent. picked the correct definition.
	Furthermore, only 16 per cent. knew that when making private fostering arrangements, the parent and carer must notify the local authority of the area where the child will live, and that failure to do so is an offence. Two hundred professionalsprofessionals, not just parentswho come into regular contact with children were surveyed, including teachers, teaching assistants, doctors and nurses. What is really worrying is that only 18 per cent. of those professionals knew the correct definition of private fostering, despite the fact that such professionals obviously play a vital role in identifying privately fostered children.

Julie Kirkbride: My hon. Friend has given the most astonishing figures; the mind boggles about what the other 82 per cent. of the professionals or public thought private fostering was. Does he have the questions that were asked, so that the House can understand what people might have thought?

Tim Loughton: I do not have them to hand, although I have the report, which I shall be happy to pass on to my hon. Friend. But the figures speak for themselves. The fact is that professionals gave that response, and it is terribly alarming to think about what on earth they thought private fostering was.
	It would appear from that evidence that the publicity information on the existing notification process has been an abysmal failure. How much money was spent on it, and what results do the Government think have been gained? The surveying of key target audiences has shown that if it has had any impact, it has been a negative impact.
	The time has surely come for a proper formal registration scheme for private fostering arrangements. I do not claim that it would be a universal panacea. It would not be easy to police and it would not be foolproof. I certainly do not want to play the nanny state card by having the state interfere with children who legitimately attend boarding schools or language schools or children on holiday exchanges, who have often been cited as a potential problem as regards such legislation. The point is that we need a private fostering registration scheme, which the un-sunsetted new clause would provide. That national register of private foster carers would be available to birth parents who wish to pursue a private fostering arrangement, and it would enable local authorities to ensure that standards of care were suitable and appropriate and that suitable and appropriate help and support was offered. Such a scheme could also deter private foster carers who had fallen foul of local authorities or authorised foster agency inspections but had not committed offences sufficiently serious for them to be put on the Department for Children, Schools and Families watch list.
	The Government have not made the case for why the scheme should not now come into force. In our deliberations on the Children Bill in 2004, the then Minister with responsibility for children said:
	we will...require the local safeguarding boards to have regard to how well or otherwise private fostering arrangements are being implemented.
	I would like to hear whether the findings of those local safeguarding boards have coloured the Government's thinking in not going ahead with the scheme. The Minister continued:
	the notification scheme has not workedthere has not been compliance with the regulatory framework...if this final attempt to get the notification scheme to work is not successful, we would have to examine an alternative, despite the many concerns that we have about the alternatives.
	She described the positive disincentive of the scheme as it then stood, and finally said:
	if we fail in our endeavours to make the notification scheme work, we will not need to return to the House with primary legislation and we will implement the registration scheme, despite our concerns about whether it will work as well as everyone would like it to.[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 289-291.]
	Those words were pretty categorical. It was clear four years ago that unless there was overwhelming evidence to show that the notification scheme was working, this section of the Children Act 2004 would come into force. Why, therefore, are the Government seeking to extend the sunset clause yet again? When is a sunset not a sunset? How many more chances will they give it to show that the notification scheme worksor that, as we think, it does not workbefore we have the private fostering registration scheme for which a wide cross-section of people have been calling for many years? On that basis, I am keen to commend new clause 7, which is long overdue.
	New clause 23 proposes foster carers charters. We are all acutely aware of the shortage of foster carers, particularly those with specialisms. All the evidence shows great variety and contrasts in the experiences of foster carers and their relationships with local authorities, so we need to have a level playing field. Foster carers often say that they lack support from their local authority when they need it. Children with complex needs may be placed with them, but the necessary accompanying package of supportspecialist professionals, speech and language therapy, children and adolescent mental health services, or whatever it may beis not forthcoming, and they have limited access to specialist services.
	The foster carers charter is all about a fair deal for foster carers. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that local authorities do the right thing by foster carers and their authority, that the means by which local authorities will support kinship carers are set down in writing, that variations in regional practice are made more transparent, that local authorities are made more accountable to foster carers, and that prospective foster carers are given a better sense of what to expect. That proposal was put forward in the Centre for Social Justice report Couldn't Care Less, which reveals a wide variation in conditions for foster carers across the country. Too many foster carers are unsure of their status, entitlements and responsibilities.
	We believe that local authorities should devise and publish a simple fostering charter to which they sign up, and which should specify the basic support that all fostering kinship carers should receive. It should provide a kitemark that would allow foster carers to know whether they were receiving the help to which they were entitled, and it would hold local authorities to account.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that prospective foster carers should also be provided with full information about a prospective foster childtheir history, their health and any other problems that they haveparticularly if they have profound behavioural problems, so that the foster parents can make a judgment as to whether they can cope with that situation?

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Committee we discussed the appropriateness of certain placements, particularly in the case of children with complex needs, where it is absolutely essential to maintain the stability of a placement so that it has a good chance of succeeding. For the placement to stand any chance of getting off the ground, there should be a full transparent declaration of a child's needs. That is what the charter is all about: ensuring that foster carers can expect to receive all the relevant information that they need. It would ensure that local authorities provided that information. It would also include references to items such as a living wage, respect for foster carer opinions and support from education, social care and mental health professionals. In return, foster carers would be clearly shown what was expected of them, such as their training obligations.
	I believe that our proposal would help to reverse the postcode lottery in the treatment of foster carers, and it would encourage a better quality of relationship between foster carers and local councils, thus improving recruitment and retention. This is not something we are trying to impose nationally, from the centreit will be up to local authorities to decide on what their charters would contain for their local foster carers' needs. It is a fair deal for foster carers, who do an excellent and very important job in this country. We need to make their job easier and give them far more support. They need to know what support they can expect, and we hope that by doing that, we might attract more foster carers.

Edward Timpson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of this charter to each local authority will help to improve the accountability of social workers to foster carers at a time when many such carers are caring for foster children while social workers are not meeting their duty to make statutory visits on a regular basis? The charter will help shore up the response to that problem.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I defer to his much greater personal and professional knowledge of how the system is workingor not workingthroughout the country. He is right that too often, because of pressures of work and systemic problems, particularly relating to the social workers' work load, too many excuses are made about why social workers are not fulfilling their expected duties. If what is expected of them is set down, there is a better chance of holding an authority to account to ensure that it has the number, variety and diversity of social workers to do the job that it has to do properly. That is all part of the process.
	We are proposing two important new clauses. Not for the first time, new clause 7 has proved its worth, and there is no excuse for further prevarication and delay on the subject of why such a scheme should not come into force now. New clause 23 represents an important way of sending a signal to foster carers that they are valued, and that they should know what to expect as part of the deal for taking on an enormous duty of care for which we owe them enormous gratitude.

Annette Brooke: I would like to address new clause 7, to which I have signed up. Like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I feel very strongly about it.
	Privately fostered children who are unknown to the authorities must be a cause for concern, given that so many reports confirm that the total will include some very vulnerable children. Authorities have no knowledge of the physical and emotional support systems available to those childrenor, indeed, whether such systems are available to them.
	The report that the then Prime Minister commissioned in 1997, which Sir William Utting undertook, referred to private fostering as a potential honey pot for abusers. I proposed a compulsory registration scheme for private fosterers in the Committee that considered the Children Act 2004. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, the then children's Minister, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), stated:
	The clause is in the Bill because we want to strengthen the scheme and give it one last chance to work... Secondly, we will require local authorities to monitor the operation of the scheme far more closely, and to provide information for us on how many registrations they achieve each year.[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 288-89.]
	Obviously, we have no idea how many children are privately fostered. For many years, the figure of 10,000 children has been suggested. However, the latest figures show that, at 31 March 2008, 1,330 children were known to live under private fostering arrangements. In previous years, the figures were: 1,250 in 2007, 980 in 2006 and 730 in 2005. Clearly, there is a staggering gap between the number of children estimated to be living under private fostering arrangements and those accounted for. That demonstrates that foster parents are simply not coming forward and alerting authorities to their presence. The Children Act 2004 gave the notification scheme three years to work and clearly stated that compulsory registration would be introduced if it did not. The figures plainly demonstrate that the notification scheme is not working.
	Closer examination of the figures shows great regional variations. Although we are considering relatively low numbers, Yorkshire and Humberside recorded a 50 per cent. increase in new notifications per year between 2005 and 2008, whereas London recorded a 327 per cent. increase.
	I feel that it is worth mentioning again the tragic case of Victoria Climbi. Although some would argue that a private fostering arrangement did not exist in her case, her situation could well have been such an arrangement. Parts of the inquiry following her death serve as a very real warning of the dangers of children being missed by the authorities. Paragraph 1.27 is especially pertinent. It states:
	the single most important change in the future must be the drawing of a clear line of accountability, from top to bottom, without doubt or ambiguity about who is responsible at every level for the well-being of vulnerable children.
	How can we have accountability if we do not know which children are privately fostered?
	It is also worth considering that, in addition to the huge benefits to the child, compulsory registration would be incredibly helpful to foster parents. The security to parents of gaining confirmation of their role and status and being part of a network would be extremely beneficial.
	To revert to the statistics that I cited earlier, there are clearly variations in practice across the country. Should the Minister decide to resist the new clauseI sincerely hope that she will notwill she give details of the robust plan and actions that she will take to ensure that best practice is shared and that all local authorities have the matter high on their agenda? How will she ensure that notification works? Delay in the matter is a sign of failure and perhaps even negligence.
	New clause 13 relates to the registration of foster carers. Registration would ensure that foster carers were accorded the status and standing that their role demands, and improve the respect and treatment that they receive from other professionals with whom they work. It would also allow for the introduction of a national code of conduct, for expectations about continuing professional development to be raised, for ensuring that safeguarding children remains paramount, and for increased portability of approval for foster carers who move to a new part of the country.
	Currently, foster carers must be approved by a fostering service provider before a child is placed with them. Foster carers can be approved by only one fostering service provider and only that provider can place a child with them post-approval. With the proposed registration of residential social care workers, it is becoming increasingly anomalous that foster carers, who have far greater unsupervised contact with vulnerable children, should remain unregistered.
	There are difficulties with the current system. When a person applies to be a foster carer, there is no system in place to identify whether someone has been previously approved or had their approval terminated, unless the individual chooses to make that disclosure. Also, foster carers are approved by the individual local authority. If they move to another part of the country or wish to change the fostering service that they work for, they must go through the whole approval process again. There are neither nationally agreed expectations about foster carers' continuing professional development nor any formal recognition that places them at the heart of the team surrounding the child in care.
	It is so important to continue working towards the professionalisation of foster carers. Our proposal would be a step in the right direction. The code of practice would be of enormous value, as it would strengthen and clarify what children and young people can expect from their foster carer. The point is to confirm the status and expectations of foster carers, to safeguard children in care and to reassure the general public. Those objectives have been met for others in the social care work force, so when will we achieve parity for foster carers?
	Interestingly, new clause 23 touches on some of the same issues, but proposes a more informal approach. It contains some interesting ideas; indeed, I would be rather surprised if something similar were not operating in the best local authorities. I am therefore not convinced that there is a need to legislate at this stage; rather, perhaps new clause 23 sets out some good practice that should be encouraged.

Barry Gardiner: No vice can be worse than the sustained and deliberate abuse of a child by an adult who has promised to protect and care for them. Therefore, no Member of Parliament who represents the people of Brent could rise in the House to speak about fostering without the heavy memory of the case of Victoria Climbi, who was once resident in Brent and was murdered by her foster parents.
	Clear leadership and guidance was given by Lord Laming in his 2003 report on that murder. The Government have introduced measures to amend the arrangements under the 1989 Act for local authorities to safeguard and protect the welfare of privately fostered children.
	I listened with great care to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who explained that section 45 of the 2004 Act, while allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a registration scheme for all private foster carers, is in jeopardy of going into the sunset, as he put it, and not being implemented. That is what I take to be the import of new clause 7, which he has moved. It is on those issues that I wish to speak and probe.
	Victoria Climbi came to this country as a young girl, as do many children who come to my constituency. In Wembley, we have a clear pattern of immigration of young children, who come to stay with aunties, uncles or members of their extended family. Often they come on a six-month visitor visa to live with relatives. Those young children will often start school over that six-month period, yet without any assessment being made of their legality or status. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families knows only too well from her experience at the Home Office how many of those children end up becoming overstayers and, as such, children of no status within the community. They are extremely vulnerable children who, if they had ever had a passport holding the visa that expired, would have had it taken away by the foster parentthe carer, supposedly.
	I have dealt with many cases involving people who overstayed for many years, but who first came to my surgery as children and who had on many occasions been subjected to abuse. For that reason, I welcome the provision in clause 7 that puts a duty on the Border and Immigration Agency to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. To some extent, that will go a long way to addressing the problems that I have outlined and which the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) talked about.
	I want simply to ask questions. I listened with great care and with some sympathy to those two hon. Members speak of the need for clear lines of accountability and clarity on the issue. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether agreeing to the new clause would mean having to engage in a process of drafting and consultation on regulations that itself might exceed the time limit specified in that new clause. How long is necessary to gather and analyse the evidence and to make a sound decision about the future? Will she outline what proposals the Government have to do that and to take on board the clear concern that there should be clarity for children who find themselves in such a situation?
	I want briefly to discuss new clause 23. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about a fair deal for foster carers. I hope he will acknowledge the considerable progress that the Government have made in establishing precisely such a fair deal. Virtually every hon. Member who has spoken in the House today referred to the enormous debt of gratitude that we as a society owe to people who open their lives to childrenoften very vulnerable childrenand care for them. I wish to add my thanks to all those carers and foster carers in my constituency who perform that incredible service and work.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in the legislation that they have passed and the proposals that they have made the Government have taken extraordinarily seriously the issue of foster carers and the sense of responsibility that we owe to them for the work that they do. The White Paper Care Matters emphasised the importance of providing carers with the necessary development, support and training to equip them with the skills that they require to deal with children who often have extremely complex needs.
	Care Matters sets out a number of proposals to improve the recruitment and retention of foster carers and the quality and stability of placements. To support carers to develop effective relationships with the children in their care, the Government have committed themselves to funding a national roll-out of Fostering Changes, a positive parenting programme that aims to develop carers' capacity to manage and cope with the often extremely challenging behaviour of children under their care. At least one London local authority has already adopted the Fostering Changes programme.
	More generally, a number of significant improvements for foster carers have already been made. In April last year, the Government introduced a national minimum allowance intended to set a benchmark for minimum payment rates for all foster carers, so that no one should be out of pocket as a result of that caring role. That was accompanied by good practice guidance to help providers to improve the way that they organise their payment systems for foster carers. In May last year, the Government funded the Children's Workforce Development Council to launch the foster care training, support and development standards, giving fostering providers a framework for their carers' training and professional development.
	In all those areas, I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will accept that the Government have gone very far and quite fast in achieving the support and clarity for carers that he calls for in new clause 23.

Emily Thornberry: Having been elected for about three and a half years, I have realised how important it is to have a constituency, and how much a constituency educates us. I have spent the past three and a half years trying to get to grips with and understand my constituency, and have learned a huge amount. It has been an important part of my political educationit is a little like taking off the layers of an onion. One of the important things is to apply social policy to the practical experiences of constituents. Speaking to foster carers and those in our constituencies who support and train them enables us to appreciate the difference between real help and initiatives that look good on paper but are, in fact, so much red tape.
	I commend a new initiative called Fostering Changes, which has been promoted by the Government. It began at Southwark and has been developed in Islington in my constituency. It is about giving real support to foster parents, as opposed to being a charter for foster carers simply to put on their wall. Fostering Changes gives a great deal of assistance to foster parents. My constituency is an inner-city one with high levels of deprivation. If there were a top 10 in terms of the number of people who are drug addicts, have mental health problems and are struggling to bring up children on their own, unfortunately we would be in it. My borough is also No. 3 in the country in terms of the highest number of children in care per head.
	However, before Conservative Members get excited and start bouncing up and down talking about a broken society, let me say that we are not a broken society. Many people in my constituency will open up their hearts and homes and give such young people somewhere to live where they can be loved. Such kids are often difficult, angry and mixed up, but 75 per cent. of Islington's children who live in care are in families where they are supported. There has been a training course available to help fosterers deal with allegations, to assist them in giving first aid, to train them in drug and alcohol issues, and to promote children's ID.
	Fostering Changes, however, was developed by the borough of Southwark and the Maudsley, on the Webster-Stratton model. People from the Maudsley have come to Islington to train up our trainers, and they are now able to do the courses. We are about to start the fifth course. We hope that by the end of this year all our carers will have been trained. The course lasts 10 weeks, and one day a week is spent talking about how to deal with the difficult behaviour of the children being looked after.
	That course is primarily intended for those who are looking after children aged between three and 11, but there have been courses for teenagers as well. It is not magic, but it really helps with building a relationship between the furious little bundle who has had such an enormously difficult life and has ended up in someone's home, and the adult who is there to love it and give it security but who is, ultimately, a stranger and not its mum. The purpose of the course is to build that relationship so that carers can deal with the furious bundle, but also manage access to the original familywho may, in fact, represent some of the causes of many of the difficulties involvedand the relationship with the rest of the family.
	I am very grateful to Norma Barnes and Mary Day, who have spent time explaining exactly what the course is about. Essentially, it is about positive reinforcement. During the day of the course, the carer talks about the difficulties that he or she is experiencing with the child, and is set homework for the rest of the week on how to deal with those difficulties: how to ignore bad behaviour and positively reinforce good behaviour, and how to give 30 minutes a day to a child. The carer should simply give the child attentionnot direct the child and not ask questions, but do what the child wants. The difference that that makes to a severely abused child who has come from a difficult background into a home where there is an adult who simply wants to be with that child reinforces the child's identity and confidence and helps to address bad behaviour in, I am told, a fantastic way. Along with other forms of disciplinetime out, consequences, and the other more negative side of controlling a childit can work really well. As I have said, it is not magic, but it helps to develop relationships.
	That Government initiative was launched in Islington, but the good news for hon. Members is that it will be coming their way soon. It is being sent around the rest of the country, and I hope that foster parents will benefit from the practical and real help that it provides.

Beverley Hughes: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for their knowledgeable descriptions of a number of the efforts we have made to support foster carers in ways that make a real difference to them as, in my view, a charter and registration process would not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the Fostering Changes programme is spoken of very enthusiastically and warmly by foster carers who have benefited from it.
	In the relatively short time left to me I want to focus on new clause 7, which deals with something that concerns Members throughout the Housethe issue of privately fostered children. We all know that some such childrenbut by no means all: that is an important pointare a potentially vulnerable group. I share the anxiety of Members throughout the House to ensure that the arrangements for safeguarding them are as robust and effective as possible, and to do so as speedily as possible.
	New clause 7 proposes that within a year of the Bill's being passed, the Secretary of State would have to make regulations in relation to England to establish a registration scheme for private foster carers, and Welsh Ministers would have to do likewise for Wales. I recognise that there have been calls for a registration scheme for some time, and that in 2004 we said that we thought we could decide the matter within four years, but let me say to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that, keen as I am to move forward, it is clear to me that that time scale was too optimistic. Having examined the issue in some detail, I should add that it is equally clear to me that it would be unwise and foolhardy, if not impossible, to introduce a registration scheme within a year. I think that in the question he asked me on the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North reached the right conclusion: that it simply would not be possible.
	I accept that local authorities could have been swifter and more diligent in developing the notification scheme and raising levels of awareness, as required by the duty in the 2004 Act. I also accept, however, that we are asking them to do something extraordinarily difficult, which means building relationships with, in some cases, the most separated minority communities. That applies particularly to the children about whom we are most concerned.
	I would not accept that we are dithering or dragging our feet. I gently remind the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham of the longer time scale. The Conservative party put in the Children Act 1989 a duty on local authorities to satisfy themselves of the welfare of privately fostered children, and then for eight years did nothing to satisfy themselves that local authorities were undertaking that duty.

Edward Timpson: The Minister will recall that in Committee the former Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families said during the debate on that issue that the principle of the scheme had not been abandoned by the Government. May I ask the Minister to go further today and to say that in principle the scheme is one that the Government believe in and that it is simply the logistics, the mechanisms and the gathering of evidence that are holding us back?

Beverley Hughes: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman, when he mentions the scheme, is talking about a notification scheme or a registration scheme. We have not abandoned the possibility of the necessity for a registration scheme, but because a year is not enough to test the notification scheme or to put a registration scheme in place, we have made provision in the Bill to extend the period for evaluation and assessment further before we make a decision on a registration scheme and abandon notification completely.
	The registration scheme itself is not a panacea.

Tim Loughton: I said that.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that he knows that, but I will explain why. Exactly the same challenges that are facing us now in making a notification scheme work will apply in relation to a registration scheme. Those children who we are most worried about who are not currently being notified to the local authority and who are in a privately fostered arrangement will not necessarily be registered with the local authority. The local authority would be faced with the same challenges of raising levels of awareness, building relationships with minority communities and making sure that everyone registers who should. It is not a panacea for that precise reason.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) challenged us to say what we are going to do in the meantime. There are three things that we need to do. First, we need sufficient evidence before we make a decision and proceed. That is simply not available in the time scale, not because we have been tardy, but because it was never going to be available in the time scale. We have two full years of data on the notification scheme for 2006-07 and 2007-08. We have yet to get the third year that we always said we needed. Inspection data are also important. We set in place a three-year inspection programme started by the Commission for Social Care Inspection and continued by the Office for Standards in Education. The third report will not be completed until November 2009. The Welsh care and social services inspectorate is also undertaking a national review that will not be published until 2009.
	Secondly, while we get that evidence, we need to ensure that we can push to the wire to see whether we can make the existing notification scheme as effective as possible. In that regard, we have already done a number of things. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) was the Under-Secretary of State, he wrote to all directors of children's services asking them to do all they could to raise awareness of the scheme and to maximise notifications. Similar efforts have been made in Wales.  [Interruption.] He wrote last month to all directors. Government offices will be working closely with local authorities in those areas where notifications are low, identifying them and targeting them. We are developing a national communications strategy to raise awareness of the current requirements within the children's work force and we have provided 50,000 to the British Association for Adoption and Fostering to sponsor a national private fostering awareness week in January. The Welsh Assembly Government are also providing support to BAAF in Wales to do a similar thing. Those measures together will help us to test the current system and give it its best chance of success.
	Thirdly, and most importantly, we are giving very careful consideration to the best long-term solution during this period. This is not a clear-cut issue. We need to understand much better what added value, if any, a registration scheme would bring and how it would work, recognising not only the potential impact on local authorities, butthe hon. Gentleman touched on this but did not elaboratethe potential disadvantages for many ordinary families making normal and straightforward arrangements that we would not want to bring into the purview of a registration scheme, and the penalties that would flow from not registering such an arrangement.
	It is not clear that registration would be any more successful in encouraging registration from those who do not currently notify and it might even deter some people from registering their private arrangements. We want to work with an independent expert group that will advise me over the next couple of years on these important matters. The first meeting of the group was held on 29 September and I am looking forward to announcing shortly, I hope, the appointment of a very senior, independent chair of the group, who I know will have the confidence of all Members. The group's role will be to advise the Department on raising awareness of the strengthened notification scheme, on assessing the evidence of impact, on options for further strengthening the notification scheme and on developing models for a registration scheme in advance, if that is the decision made.
	The group consists of representatives of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, Ofsted, the British Association of Adoption and Fostering, the NSPCC and the Home Office. We will invite others from Wales to join us. The group will be meeting regularly and will present its final report to Ministers in March 2010 when we will make a decision. I will publish the conclusions of the group and will make a statement to the House. I have not abandoned the idea of a registration scheme, but I make no apologies for wanting to get this right. It is therefore important to retain the option of introducing a registration scheme for a further three years, so if the case is compelling, it can be introduced at the right time.
	Significantly, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering agrees that we should seek first to improve the current arrangements and evaluate them more fully before deciding whether to introduce a registration regime. BAAF shares our reservations about the introduction of a registration scheme at this point. That has weighed heavily with me in deciding whether to include the provision in the Bill for extending the period to three years. I will not accept the amendment, which would not give us a well worked out registration scheme. That would be very dangerous.
	New clause 23 would require local authorities to publish a charter setting out the authorities' responsibilities with regard to foster carers within their area. There are some technical reasons why this would be both difficult and confusing. One is that foster carers enter into a foster care agreement with their provider, but in addition they enter into a foster placement agreement with the local authority placing the child. For instance, where a provider is not a local authority, the proposal would be extremely confusing. The kind of measures that we have introduced are much more important in assisting foster carers. Similarly for a registration process, foster carers are selected, recruited and trained locally and, of course, a national registration scheme would impose on them all of the conditions that a registration scheme now imposes on social workers. I am afraid that I cannot accept those amendments, either.

Tim Loughton: Well, we have had 13 minutes of a complete and utter cop-out, and I now have less than one minute to say why it was a cop-out.
	Four years is apparently not enough. It has been 19 years since the Children Act was mooted in 1989. It has been 11 years since the Utting report in
	 It being Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [16 June].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Madam Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 24
	  
	Responsibility for children in care who enter custody

'In section 20 of the 1989 Act after subsection (11), insert
	(12) Where a child was accommodated by the local authority under this section immediately before being detained, the child shall continue to be deemed a looked after child for the purposes of section 23(1)(b) and section 24 of this Act save for the provision of accommodation.
	(13) In this section detained means detained in a remand centre, a young offenders institution or a secure training centre, or any other institution pursuant to an order of a court.
	In section 22 of the 1989 Act after subsection (1)(b), insert
	(c) deemed to be looked after in accordance with section 20(12).'. [Tim Loughton.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.
	After Clause 6
	 Amendment made: No. 4, page 5, line 38, leave out clause 7. [Sarah McCarthy-Fry.]

Clause 9
	  
	Provision of accommodation and maintenance for children who are looked after by a local authority

Amendment made: No. 7, page 8, line 34, at end insert
	'( ) Until the coming into force of subsection (1), Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act has effect with the modifications specified in Schedule [Transitory modifications of Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act].'. [ Sarah McCarthy-Fry. ]

Clause 18
	  
	Notification to appropriate officer of children in long-term care

Amendments made: No. 8, page 14, line 25, leave out '(4)' and insert '(4A)'.
	No. 9, in page 14, line 38, at end insert
	'(4A) After that subsection add
	(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), if the child is not in the area of the local authority, they must treat him as if he were in that area.'. [ Sarah McCarthy-Fry .]

Clause 32
	  
	Power of Registrar General to supply information to national authorities

Amendment made: No. 10, page 25, line 23, leave out 'the death of a' and insert 'a deceased'. [ Sarah McCarthy-Fry .]

New Schedule 1
	  
	'Transitory modifications of Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act

1 Paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act (regulations as to placing of children with local authority foster parents) has effect as if paragraphs (d) and (g) were omitted.
	2 That Schedule has effect as if, after paragraph 12, there were inserted
	12A (1) Regulations under section 23(2)(a) may, in particular, also make provision
	(a) for securing that a child is not placed with a local authority foster parent unless that person is for the time being approved as a local authority foster parent by such local authority as may be prescribed;
	(b) establishing a procedure under which any person in respect of whom a qualifying determination has been made may apply to the appropriate national authority for a review of that determination by a panel constituted by that national authority.
	(2) A determination is a qualifying determination if
	(a) it relates to the issue of whether a person should be approved, or should continue to be approved, as a local authority foster parent; and
	(b) it is of a prescribed description.
	(3) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) may include provision as to
	(a) the duties and powers of a panel;
	(b) the administration and procedures of a panel;
	(c) the appointment of members of a panel (including the number, or any limit on the number, of members who may be appointed and any conditions for appointment);
	(d) the payment of fees to members of a panel;
	(e) the duties of any person in connection with a review conducted under the regulations;
	(f) the monitoring of any such reviews.
	(4) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(e) may impose a duty to pay to the appropriate national authority such sum as that national authority may determine; but such a duty may not be imposed upon a person who has applied for a review of a qualifying determination.
	(5) The appropriate national authority must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the aggregate of the sums which become payable to it under regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) does not exceed the cost to it of performing its independent review functions.
	(6) The appropriate national authority may make an arrangement with an organisation under which independent review functions are performed by the organisation on the national authority's behalf.
	(7) If the appropriate national authority makes such an arrangement with an organisation, the organisation is to perform its functions under the arrangement in accordance with any general or special directions given by that national authority.
	(8) The arrangement may include provision for payments to be made to the organisation by the appropriate national authority.
	(9) Payments made by the appropriate national authority in accordance with such provision shall be taken into account in determining (for the purpose of sub-paragraph (5)) the cost to that national authority of performing its independent review functions.
	(10) Where the Welsh Ministers are the appropriate national authority, sub-paragraphs (6) and (8) also apply as if references to an organisation included references to the Secretary of State.
	(11) In this paragraph
	financial year means a period of twelve months ending with 31st March;
	independent review function means a function conferred or imposed on a national authority by regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b);
	organisation includes a public body and a private or voluntary organisation.
	12B Regulations under section 23(2)(a) may, in particular, also make provision as to the circumstances in which local authorities may make arrangements for duties imposed on them by the regulations to be discharged on their behalf.'. [ Sarah McCarthy-Fry .]
	 Brought up, read the  First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debates on the Bill. We have benefited from an exceptionally high quality of debate, both on Report this afternoon and at the earlier stages. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, who, during my short time at the Department for Children, Schools and Families, has demonstrated her absolute commitment to children and young people; that has also been shown in her work on the Bill.
	Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who did virtually all the work on the Billyet I am the one presenting it on Third Reading. I wish him really well in his new post and thank him for his work. I also thank everybody who served on the Committee and the two Chairmen. As will be imagined, my bedtime reading has been the  Hansard reports of the Committee deliberations. I have seen that the Committee showed great dedication, expertise and diligence in its output.
	Members on both sides have been generous with their time and wisdom and I am happy to say that that has improved the Bill and sharpened the Government's thinking on a wide range of issues. Looked-after children will benefit from the improvements, and that is a goal that we all share. The Bill strengthens the framework for the support given to looked-after children, reflecting our high ambitions for such children and young people to enable them to achieve the potential that we all know they have. As a result of the Bill, children in care will benefit from greater stability in their lives and experiences of care. Their voices will be heard more clearly by their corporate parents, and, crucially, their views and wishes will be more systematically taken into account in decisions that affect them.
	However, let me be absolutely clear that the passage of the Bill does not signal the end of our efforts to improve the lives of those children; it is the beginning of the journey. Legislation, on its own, will not change practice. We must continue to drive change and improvements at every level in the care system because we know that doing better for vulnerable children is difficult. It requires dedication, patience, persistence and a commitment to make the difference.
	To improve practice at every level requires effort and better parenting from everyone in the system: those working with children and young people directly; social workers and carers, who clearly have a crucial role; independent reviewing officers; visitors; teachers; GPs; nurses; dentists; and all those who affect children's lives. There are also those who lead and manage the system: lead members in local authorities, chief executives and managers in all the organisations that play a role in supporting these most vulnerable children and young people as they go through the care system and when they leave care.
	We all need to become advocates for children in care. We do not have to be designated teachers to care about the performance of looked-after children. We do not have to be looked-after children's nurses to care about their health. It is the job of all of us to do better.
	In the next year we will be implementing this Billputting it into practice through regulations, statutory guidance and the inspection and performance frameworks for local authorities and others providing care. We will also continue to innovate and improve practice through our pilots and through work with the sector to support improvement right across the country. The Bill provides the right framework to drive improvement, but we will be working closely with our partners locally to ensure that everyone can make the most of opportunities that it provides to do better for children in care.

Helen Southworth: The Bill that my hon. Friend describes is radical and revolutionary for children in care, and we all truly appreciate what has been done to achieve it. Will she assure us that young people who are leaving care and in transition will get the same consideration in regulations and in practice improvements over the next months and years?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. In the short time that I have been at the Department, she has demonstrated her commitment to that particular group of people, who she has been diligent in bringing to my attention. I can assure her that we will continue to keep them in mind, along with all the other looked-after children.
	This is not a single-year initiative or a quick fix. We need to keep working together to do better, and this Government will review progress every year in an annual ministerial stock-take. I am sure that all Members of this House will continue to work together constructively for the benefit of all children, but particularly for children in care. We will celebrate the successes of those already working so hard for children in care, and the successes and achievements of children and young people themselves, but we will be clear about where we need to push harder to improve and do better, and we will report progress to Parliament each year.

Tim Loughton: I am happy, on behalf of the Opposition, to add my support to the Bill, as we have done all along. I congratulate the Minister on carrying it off as if she had been part of the Bill's passage right from the beginning rather than for a matter of hours. She acquitted herself exceedingly well having been thrown in at the deep end with very little notice.
	I want to say one negative thing and then a few positive things. The negative comment carries on from our interrupted debate on the private fostering registration scheme. Given that the measures in the Bill have had widespread support and that other amendments have been taken on board constructively by the Government, in principle if not in word, it is unfortunate that that scheme, for which many of us, in all earnestness and genuineness, have called over many years, was turfed out with no credible idea of when the Government might at long last invoke it, having given it one more chance to work back in 2004. It is a cop-out to say that the data are not available. It was not clear by the end of the Minister's comments, which took us almost up to 6 o'clock, whether it is purely a shortage of data that is preventing the scheme from going ahead or, as I fear, the Minister's failure to come to terms with its principle. As Utting knew, Laming knew, and most children's organisations knew, this scheme is well overdue, but for some reason the Government, having blamed local authorities and the last Conservative Government, simply will not bring it in. I am afraid that we have no confidence that after another four yearsnot that they will be in a position to do it thenthey would say, Now the data are in and at last we will let children have the protection of this scheme.
	Let me turn to the positives. This is an important Bill. It has been long in coming and it contains many measures that many Members on both sides of the House have called for over many years to protect this most vulnerable group of children for whom outcomes have been absolutely scandalous for far too many years under successive Governments. On every outcome applicable to children in the care systembe it on educational outcomes, health outcomes, homelessness outcomes, or ending up in the justice systemthose children get a very raw deal, and it shames us all still to have to debate some of the statistics. I hope that, as the Minister rightly said, although the Bill is not a panacea that will solve all the problems, it is the start of a journey towards changing attitudes and priorities.
	We very much welcome the serious measures taken in the Bill to give greater stability to children in the care system by trying, where possible, to keep them closer to home, in familiar environments, with familiar people and in association with their siblings, and to provide consistency with regard to the people looking after them and the places where they go to school. It places greater responsibilities on authorities to assure the well-being of people in the care system.
	I welcomed the much more constructive tone in Committee, where the welfare checklist we introduced was taken positively on board by the then Minister of State, who said that she would consider incorporating a version of it in the regulations that will follow the Bill. We welcome the greater recognitionnot quite as categorical in the Bill as we might have likedof the importance of kinship care and sibling contact. We welcome the care breaks for disabled children, which the Secretary of State was largely responsible for initiating in the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign some time ago. We welcome the innovation of social worker practices, which did not feature in discussions on Report, but which are a radical, bold move. The findings from the initial pilots will be eagerly awaited.
	We need innovation in this aspect of public service because, at the end of the day, it is not the ownership of the provision of service that matters, but the welfare of the children and the advancement and results we are achieving for the most vulnerable. I know that we all agree that that must be our most important objective. It is a shame that there is not to be an immediate private foster carers registration scheme. It is a shame that our idea of a chief social worker, which we proposed in Committee, will have to wait a few more months. It is a shame that a foster carers charter is not to be included, and that the extra protection for children in the custody system, which we recommended, is not to be incorporated. However, Ministers made positive responses, which demonstrated an appreciation of the principles and intention behind some of those proposals.
	In closing, I thank my colleagues on the Committee. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) is no longer a Committee virgin: he was plunged in at the deep end and proved his expertise and knowledge on the subject of the family legal system and children in the care system. As a very new and fresh Member, he acquitted himself exceedingly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) again brought to bear his expertise in this area, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who has been involved in many debates on children's legislation before. We were ably whipped by a loquacious Whip, in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). We have had a good team. In fact, I think it is the first Public Bill Committee on which I have served where just about every Labour Back Bencher made good contributionsthey were not there just to be Lobby fodder. I pass on my thanks to the Clerks, who helped us considerably in getting the terminology of our amendments right so that not many were turfed out because they failed to pass muster.
	We wish the Bill well. We have wished for many of the intentions and proposals in it for many years, and at last they have become a reality. At last, we can say with some confidence that a serious attempt has been made to address and attack the scandal that is the outcome for the most vulnerable young peoplethose who find themselves in the care system through no fault of their own.

Helen Southworth: I would like to say once again how effective the Bill is, how effective the process has been and how positive future outcomes should be for young people in care and those leaving care. I would not be speaking in this debate if I were not prepared to say that I want to make sure we get those outcomes. We have been around for a little while now, and we know that sometimes, despite our best intentions, delivery for young people is not what we would always want it to be. I therefore ask Ministers again, in the next few months when regulations are being prepared to support the measure, to give particular consideration to the young people whom we have identified as especially vulnerablethose who leave care too early. The Bill will reduce the number of those young people, but we must monitor the situation to ensure that that happens, and that effective support is provided in the transitional stages for those who leave care before the age of 18.
	I hope that Ministers will do significant work on the outcomes for young people in custody. As hon. Members know, there is a young offenders institution in my constituency. For 11 years I have worked closely with the officers and support staff there, and have been incredibly impressed by some of the measures that they have put in place to help vulnerable young people change their lives. They have been ably assisted by social work support at the institution. It is important that the Bill and the provision for visitors do not undermine but support and add to the concept of having an embedded social worker in a young offenders institution. I hope that the regulations will show that that will take place.
	In our earlier debates it was said that, when a young person is preparing to leave a young offenders institution, it is important for an effective and experienced social worker, if not an independent reviewing officerthat remains my preferenceto be involved. Someone who has the skills, experience and abilities commensurate with being an independent reviewing officer should determine whether the young person needs to return to looked-after status, and what accommodation is suitable, and ensure that the pathways are effective and established to support those young people once they have completed a custodial sentence.
	Again, I press for support up to the age of 21 for young people who leave care. Supported accommodation is essential for young people. It is essential for everybody to have access to help, support and information when they first try to live independently, pay bills and manage a tenancy. We need to ensure in the regulations that young people who leave care are properly supported, and make it clear that there are statutory requirements, which will be monitored to ensure that the changes are put in place.
	Those things sound prescriptivethey arebut I know that Ministers and other hon. Members want them to happen. We are at the stage of moving on to expect local authorities to deliver for us. We need to be clear about our expectations of the monitoring process and of the way in which inspections are carried out, to ensure that the objectives are delivered for young people.

Annette Brooke: The Bill is important, and I hope that it will deliver exactly what we want. The process seems to have been long, starting from the Green Paper and then the White Paper. Throughout the process, listening to children and young people in care has been important and has informed parts of the measure. I look forward to young people continuing to be consulted as it is implemented, and to their wishes and feelings continuing to be respected. Perhaps more than on other measures, I have been aware of the dialogue with young people about the Bill. It is incredibly important.
	It is a sad irony that many young people come into care because of problems not of their making, and end up with their own problems because of the care system. The problems are well documentedwe could go through the statistics for the poor outcomes. However, we must ask ourselves whether we have found the solutions.
	Throughout the process, we have tried exceedingly hard and discussed all the main issues. We have spent a lot of time talking about the importance of kinship care, early intervention and family support for both the family and the individual child. We have also been talking a lot about supporting education and ensuring continuity if there is a relationship with a social worker.
	I share the concerns expressed about the importance of maintaining support up to the age of 21. Perhaps that is mainly an aspiration, but we must not lose sight of it. Let me also express my regret that time constraints today have prevented us from commenting on some of the important recommendations in the United Nations report published on Friday.
	Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), who brought his teaching experience to bear in Committee. I would also like to thank everyone who served on the Committee. It was a good Committee, with good responses from the Ministers. As usual, I hope that the words will be translated into regulations that will make a real difference. I welcome the idea of having a progress report each year, and thank all the Ministers and the Chairmen of the Committee.

David Kidney: It is inevitable that on Report we focus on the areas of contention, but at least on Third Reading we can remind ourselves of the good things that got much less of a mention earlier in the day.
	A good starting point is to remind ourselves that although our noble Friend Lord Adonis has moved on to another Department, he can look back with pride on the improvements in the Bill that he personally steered through the other place. I am thinking particularly of the new statutory duty for all Ministers to promote the well-being of children and young persons, and of the welcome new duty for local authorities to secure a sufficient and diverse range of accommodation for looked-after children. My noble Friend will be able to look back with pride on his contribution towards those two improvements on the current situation.
	All of us in the House and in government can be proud of the achievements that we hope to see as a result of the Bill: the new duty on local authorities to ensure visits to looked-after children; the designated member of staff at schools to ensure that pupils do better in school; the new encouragement of young people from a care background to go to university, with financial and other support; and the assistance for those who want to seek a career in a vocational setting.
	The changes to the power of local authorities to give cash to family members who look after children are welcome. I know, too, that the Every Disabled Child Matters coalition was pleased with the introduction of breaks for carers who look after disabled children. Finally, a small but noticeable improvement appears later in the Bill for grandparents and other family members who want a greater involvement in the upbringing of their child family members, namely the possibility of applying to court for an order, including a residence order. There are therefore some important changes to the law that we can all be pleased about.
	However, as several hon. Members have said, it is one thing to pass the law, but another to see the practice that follows. We all have a responsibility to continue our scrutiny after today, to ensure that the implementation is just as good as the passing of the Bill. Perhaps a starting point is not only to say thank you to those who have achieved so much so far for that vulnerable group of young people, but to offer them words of encouragement to keep going.
	So, to the ministerial team and the officers in the Department: thank you, but keep going. To those in local government, including the elected representatives, the officers and the employers, such as the social workers and the residential care staff: thank you, but keep going. To the private sector contributors, especially in the foster care sector, and the great network of foster carers who look after children: thank you, and keep going. I want to encourage parents and children's family members, as well as the children themselves, to think that there is support for them. They must not give up. To them I say, Thank you for what you do. Keep going.
	If any hon. Member asks why we pass such legislation or why we take an interest in how it is implemented afterwards, the answer in this case is surely that we are talking about a group that is clearly identified. It is reasonably small in number, comparatively speaking, yet the vulnerability and the suffering of those young people are immense. We all feel a passionate desire to improve their situation for the future.
	Lastly, I extend an invitation to hon. Members who are not already members to join the associate parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers, if they want to continue to take an interest in the subject, meet young people who are in care or who have left care, and listen to them discuss directly their experiences and ideas. They are amazing people with great ideas and talent. They should have a wider audience.

Edward Timpson: Briefly, I join other hon. Members in welcoming the main body and thrust of the Bill, although some opportunities have been missed, which have been highlighted and which were gone through with a fine-toothed comb in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).
	I bring two such issues to the attention of the House and urge the Government to continue to look at them closely in the near future: the registration scheme, and the treatment and support of children in custody who have lost their looked-after status having come from voluntary accommodation. That is a serious issue that needs urgent attention, and I put the Government on notice that we want some action on it sooner rather than later. However, the message from the Committee was one of moving forward for the children who are the most vulnerable in our society. There is no doubt that we have managed to achieve steps in the right direction.
	I am also delighted to hear that the Government acknowledge that these measures are the first step, and that there is still a lot of work to do to try to ensure that we provide the support and the service for the most vulnerable children in our society.
	On that note, there are two particular aspects of children in care into which the Government need to channel their energies: first, those who are on the cusp of care and are in danger of falling into the care systemwe need to try to support them and their families to prevent that from happening, because to this day we still have more than 60,000 children in the care systemand, secondly, children who want to move out of the care system and are on the cusp of a new life. We need to support their long-term future. If we can achieve that, we will have gone a long way to fulfilling our responsibilitiesas Members of Parliament, as parents and as responsible members of society.
	I welcome the Bill and I am glad that it is a step in the right direction. I look forward to the progress being put into action.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL (MARKET CHARTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Steve McCabe.]

Andrew Robathan: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise a matter that is greatly important, albeit in quite a small way, to many of my constituents. At a time when all political parties agree that we must reduce congestion, unnecessary driving and food miles, we have an extraordinary anomaly surrounding the rival markets policy of Leicester city council.
	I think that all political parties would wish to see farmers markets encouraged, where people can buy local food from local farmers. One hopes that the food is healthier and better produced, and it certainly has less embedded carbon in its transport. Typically, farmers markets are particularly strong in meat and vegetables, but many other items such as bread and cheese are often sold as well. I am delighted to say that Leicestershire Food Links organises those markets around Leicestershire, and although the markets suffer setbacks from time to time, they are growing in popularity, as indeed they are around the country.
	I would have hoped that all of us wished to encourage the local buying of local food from local producers. Sadly, Leicester city councilthose at the council are probably not bad people, although the council is Labourtakes a different view.

Iain Wright: Cheap!

Andrew Robathan: It is true. The council states that there exists a 12th-century charter, given by a 12th-century kingit could have been Henry II or possibly even the wicked King Johnthat allows Leicester city, which presumably refers to a predecessor of Leicester city council rather than the current organisation, to impose restrictions on markets to be held close to the city centre. I should stress that nobody can find the charter, although allegedly a copy exists. Leicester city council believes that it is allowed to ban any market within 6 2/3 miles of the city market. I do not know how that slightly odd measurement came about, because after all measurements were made in miles and furlongs.
	 It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .[Steve McCabe.]

Andrew Robathan: As I was saying, in medieval times, measurements were made in miles and furlongs rather than 2/3 miles, which does not quite fit in. Furthermore, the copy of the charter makes no mention of a distance from the city centre. It is suggested that 6 2/3 miles is the distance that a herd of cattle could be driven in a day or a decent walk for a medieval villein, serf or peasantI would have thought that they could have gone a bit further, but never mind.
	The fact remains that the city council believes that it has the legal authority to impose restrictions and ban markets within 6 2/3 miles of the city centre where the city market is located. Blaby, in my constituency, is well outside the city boundaries. I have no problem with the city market, and when I go into LeicesterrarelyI often go there to shop. I certainly wish the market and its traders no ill.
	I understand, however, that increasing competition from supermarkets and new commercial shopping centres is probably affecting market trade. There are large supermarketsMorrisons, I believe, on the old cattle market and a new development called Highcrosswhich must inevitably be in direct competition with the market, whereas farmers markets, held typically once a month, are not an enormous threat to custom at the city market. Apart from anything else, to drive into the city from my constituency village of Blaby takes some time. Traffic and congestion are often bad and one would have to pay to park on getting there. All those are deterrents to people who might wish to buy potatoes and sausages in the city market. Therefore, the idea that the farmers market in Blaby and the city market are in competition is palpable nonsense.
	Nevertheless, apparently the market traders are concerned that they should not lose their supposed position of market dominance over others. For that reason, they have persuaded the city council to enforce the charter. To be fair to the city council, it has recently allowed an extension of the number of farmers markets to one a month. The Minister, who thought I was being partisan earlier, might wish to know that the previous Liberal Democrat administration, supported by the Conservatives, would not allow one a month. Therefore, it is not a partisan issue.
	The magnanimity shown recently by the city council is only on the condition that the farmers market pays 300 for each day that it holds a market. The House will understand that that is a large amount to be paid for a small event, and it threatens the viability of the farmers market as a whole. At the same time, the Blaby social centre, which is akin to a village hall, holds a table-top sale to raise money for the social centre, which is a charity. I am sure that all hon. Members in the ChamberI am delighted to see the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby)have similar charitable events in their constituencies. That table-top sale typically earns between 60 and 80 on each occasion. Unbelievably, Leicester city council charges 20 for the privilege of holding that table-top sale.
	It is self-evident that in mediaeval times the layout of Leicester city might have been somewhat different, the buildings were different, there were no forms of transport other than by horse or horse and cartpossibly donkeythere were restrictive practices, and payments were made and taxes levied by means such as the charter. Life was altogether a little different without recourse to Topshop, Sainsbury's or Marks and Sparks. If anybody could produce the charter, it would be an interesting and historic document that should be placed in a museum, perhaps on the site of the city market.
	Nobody is ever going to accuse me of being a moderniserI would be most grateful if my party leader did not hear thatbut sometimes traditions become outdated and inappropriate. The charter is being used to restrict consumer choice and trade and has no justification whatever in the 21st century, even if there was apparently a test case in 1979 that upheld the right of Leicester city to dictate to others where they should have markets.
	In a radio interview yesterday, a Leicester city councillor told me that the council had a legal duty to uphold the charter. That sounds a pretty spurious explanation to me, and, indeed, the fact that the council is willing to waive the restriction in return for funds suggests that the letter of the lawwhich I do not think exists anywayis not being observed.
	I wrote to the chief executive of Leicester city council last spring. She replied on 7 May that
	the policy was amended recently to accommodate Blaby farmers market and I am happy to report this event has been very successful.
	She also wrote that the
	table top sale.....is categorised as an occasional sale market,
	and that
	all events are licensed within our market boundaries and it is important for legal purposes we maintain this position.
	I have struggled to find any reasonable justification for the rival markets policy. I very much doubt whether it is genuinely legal; it seems to me to be more a question of custom. I cannot believe that any reasonable person considers that Leicester city's jurisdiction should restrict consumers' choice and trading outside Leicester city. In short, the whole thing is nonsense: it is ludicrous.
	Furthermore, the council is acting in entirely the opposite direction to a public policy that many Members in all parts of the House would wish to be pursuedthe desirability of buying local produce from local producers locally, for instance at farmers markets. Indeed, I believe that on the one hand the Government give money to support farmers markets, while on the otherwith its holistic policyLeicester city council takes the money away as a tax. Incidentally, there is taxation without representation here.
	I ask the Government to examine the position and make a very simple rulingI suspect it would not require any primary legislationthat the charter, should it exist, be annulled. We elect Governments to govern, and I do not think that this would be a difficult case to fight, but I hope that, if there should be a ridiculous legal challenge from the city council or market traders, judgeswho sometimes disappoint mewill have enough sense to throw out the challenge.
	If Leicester city council objected to such a course, I would ask it what possible justification there was for the operation of a rival markets policy outside the jurisdiction of its civil authority. I would suggest to my aggrieved constituents that the current situation might be worth testing in law. I cannot believe that the council or Leicester city market traders would be so foolish as to bring an injunction against a farmers market, or even better, a charity table-top sale; but I believe that, if they were so stupid, the case would be easily dismissed by any judge who took a sensible and pragmatic view of life.
	Again, I ask the Government to examine the position. It does not require a great deal of time, effort or bureaucracy, and it certainly requires no money. It requires a simple ruling, and possibly a simple order or statutory instrumentI am not sure that it requires even thatto ensure that my constituents and local farmers in Leicestershire can hold farmers markets or charity table-top sales wherever they want in my constituency, without the interference of a local authority that has no jurisdiction over the area except via a spurious and outdated charter.
	I shall end on that note. I wish to hear what the Minister has to say. I am also delighted to see that the former leader of Leicester city council, the hon. Member for Leicester, South is present. If he wishes to speak, I shall have no objection if the Minister too does not object.

Peter Soulsby: I shall certainly take the opportunity to make a few brief remarks.
	As the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) acknowledged, the market at the heart of Leicester has been an essential part of the city for many generations, and continues to play a vital part in its life and commerce today. The fact that it is able to do so strongly reflects the fact that over generations the town councilnow the city councilhas maintained its right and monopoly to hold a market at the heart of Leicester, against the wishes of many who have sought to undermine that right over the years and to diminish the importance of the market.
	That said, I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I am keen, as he is, to see the expansion and success of farmers markets. As he rightly pointed out, they provide an opportunity for local producers to sell their produce to local people. That is very welcome, and I am pleased that the Government have supported it elsewhere as well as in Leicester. However, I depart from the hon. Gentleman's views to some extent. I am aware of how important it is for the city council to continue to maintain the ancient rights of the market and the charter today, as it has in previous generations. The approach adopted by the Labour-controlled city council is, as he has acknowledged, in sharp contrast to the coalition that preceded it: it is much more aware and sensitive to the needs of his constituents and of the farmers who wish to hold their markets in Blaby. I am pleased that it has allowed markets there and that, in doing that, it has set the fee that it will levy at a reasonable level, given the volume of trade.

Andrew Robathan: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I think that he is a reasonable person, but can he justify the fee outside the jurisdiction of Leicester city council?

Peter Soulsby: The market's area of influence of six and a half miles, or whatever it may be, has been long established and reflects the fact that the city is at the heart of the county and is part of the greater Leicester area. The geographic boundaries of the administrative area of the city itself are only a small part of the area that is affected by the city and that would be affected were markets to be allowed to set up regardless of their impact on the long-established charter market at the heart of the city.
	I believe that the Labour-controlled city council has been reasonable in the way in which it has looked at the matter. It has looked at the needs of those charitable organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It has set modest charges for them. In light of the scale of the trade that is being done and that is anticipated to be done by the farmers market, which I hope will continue to prosper, the city council has set the charge at a reasonable level.
	I believe that the approach should be appropriately balanced between the desirability of having successful farmers markets and the overwhelming desirability of maintaining an ancient market that is viable, thriving and at the heart of the city and its county. The city council has been putting those two things in balance in recent times. That is an appropriate approach to ensure that the market continues to be successful, while reflecting the changing times in which we live.

Iain Wright: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing the debate. I have been fascinated to learn of the market charter. Ministers are often accusedfalselyof taking the short-term view, so it has been fascinating to hear of a statute that was signed possibly in the middle ages which can still affect modern decision making today.
	I agree completely with what the hon. Gentleman said. Markets are an important hub of community life throughout the country. We estimate that there are more than 1,400 markets in the UK. They each play an important commercial and social role in their communities, a role that is not often acknowledged.
	In the interests of researching the debate, I looked at my own constituency of Hartlepool, where we have had a market for several centuries. In 1201, King John gave Hartlepool its first charter, so I was interested to hear about King John possibly giving this particular charter. Obviously, he had a fondness for market charters. The merchants of Hartlepool were given the same privileges as the merchants of Newcastle. As a result of the charter, Hartlepool was able to organise a weekly market, which ushered in a period of sustained prosperity for the area and, as in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, attracted buyers and sellers from a wide area and secured valuable trade routes in my own patch in the north of England.
	If we fast forward to the modern age, I still believe that markets, perhaps now more than everor more than for many yearscan play an important role in the social, economic and commercial life of an area. At a time when people are concerned about the quality of food, its price and the impact on the environment of growing the produce and, crucially, transporting it to be sold and consumed, markets are becoming increasingly important. They can reconnect consumers with local produce, minimise the carbon footprint, provide value for money and help to revitalise town centres, which my Department and I take seriously.
	People who are attracted into Blaby through the farmers market will often be tempted to look around the shops of its town centre, thereby helping to secure the viability of local traders. While researching the debate, I was struck by the comments of Councillor Guy Jackson of Blaby district, portfolio holder for the natural and built environment. In November 2007 he said:
	The farmers market has certainly been successful, attracting hundreds of shoppers to Blaby and making it a busy and bustling town centre. It shows that local people really want fresh produce from local producers. We are delighted we have reached agreement with Leicester city council so we can now have 12 farmers markets in Blaby during 2008.
	Some 550 farmers markets take place on a regular basis in the UK. The National Farmers Retail and Markets Association estimates that 10,000 farmers rely on farmers markets and use them to take their produce to the public. They estimate that farmers markets are worth about 220 million annually, money which feeds back directly into the local community.
	Farmers markets provide a good opportunity to cut out the middleman and improve financial returns through direct selling, price control and a regular cash flow. They can provide direct customer feedback on produce and prices, reduce the costs of transport and packaging, and provide a secure and regular market outlet, which is especially valuable for new producers, producers in organic conversion and small-scale producers who are unable to produce the quantity that might be required by supermarkets. Encouraging these principles is a key goal outlined in the Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing the Future.
	All of this reinforces the point that fundamentally markets are a local facility, servicing local people and providing much-needed outlets for small local producers and entrepreneurs. Just as markets are about providing a local hub for local businesses and people, the issue before us this evening is very much a local issue. It is complex and, as we have heard, has its roots in history and in royal and legal tradition. Nevertheless, it is a local issue.
	It is very much the kind of complex local issue that the Government want to encourage local authorities and their communities to resolve. We are often accused by our opponents of being too centralising and of wanting to micro-manage everything. In fact the reverse is true. We believe that decisions are best made as locally as possible and we wish to empower local communities to enable them to make those decisions. We believe it is right that problems such as this are resolved as locally as possible without the intervention of, or interference from, central Government. That is the ethos behind the devolutionary principles we have recently set out in our White Paper Communities in control: real people, real power. The White Paper is about devolving power to citizens and communities, and it makes significant steps towards giving local people a greater say in their lives and greater control over the forces and decisions that shape their neighbourhoods.
	We want to shift power, influence and responsibility away from existing centres of power into the hands of communities and individual citizens. That is because we believe that they can take decisions and solve complex problems for themselves. It is also because local circumstances will be different. Blaby's concerns will be very different from those of Blaydon, or Burbank in my constituency. The state's role should be to set national priorities and minimum standards, while providing support and a fair distribution of resources. The state should act as a facilitator and an enabler.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is making a sensible and rather charming speech, something I do not often say to Ministers. If he does not wish to intervene, which I entirely understand, will he perhaps encourage his colleagues in the Justice Department to give some sensible legal advice as to whether or not one local authority can dictate to farmers markets in another local authority where they should have a market? That would not be intervening.

Iain Wright: I am touched by the hon. Gentleman's kind words. I am going to refer in a moment to the idea of co-operation between several local authorities, perhaps through the auspices of multi-area agreements. If he would allow me, I might be able to address the points then.
	One of the measures announced in the White Paper is our intention to require councils to respond to local petitions. People could use petitions to express their views about markets and other local issues. The duty to respond to local petitions will help to ensure that citizens know that their council listens to their views. On the market in this casealbeit one that is affected by another local authoritylocal people stating their case and their preference through a local petition could be successful.
	I mentioned setting minimum standards. We want to raise the visibility of the overview and scrutiny function in local government. That is a tool by which a community, through its local democratically elected representatives, can address any issue that affects the local areait could be about street markets, potholes in the road or the adequacy of local health servicesrelating to the well-being of that community. Local people will be able to hold to account decisions which a local authority's executive has taken or is proposing to take. It equally includes examining any issue of potential importance to the community.
	I hope I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I appreciate and empathise with the feeling among farmers and the wider population in Blaby who want to hold regular markets to sell food and other produce direct to local customers. As I said, these types of markets are becoming increasingly important and I understand that the market in Blaby has been successful in attracting large numbers of local people who want to buy fresh produce from local producers. I am pleased to hear that Blaby district council has reached an agreement with Leicester city council to increase the number and frequency of farmers markets in Blaby, and I hope that those constructive discussions continue.
	It is important that local government works constructively together if they are to address the challenges that communities and people face in these uncertain timestoday is an apt case of that. This is even more important if we acknowledge that communitiesand, indeed, economic patterns, travel-to-work areas or even people's shopping habitsdo not always recognise or reflect neat administrative boundaries. Our agendabegun in the 2006 White Paper Strong and Prosperous Communities and continued more recently in the sub-national reviewrecognises the importance of local government working together across boundaries. In this respect, I hope I can address the points the hon. Gentleman made in his intervention.
	Multi-area agreements will allow local government to work together across boundaries to promote the economic prosperity of their sub-regions. An MAA is being considered in Leicestershire. The vision underlying it is to inspire businesses, residents and investors in Leicester itself and the surrounding market towns and rural areas. The high-level objective of the MAA is to improve the economic performance of the Leicester and Leicestershire sub-region and hence improve the quality of life for residents, workers and visitors. In turn, local authorities in the area are asking central Government also to play a role in achieving this vision and these objectives. Leicester and Leicestershire submitted their draft MAA proposals to my Department in September. We are now co-ordinating a departmental response from across Whitehall.
	If this innovative arrangement is to progress and be a success, there is a premium on constructive and open local dialogue between local authorities and their partners. I am therefore encouraged by the fact that Leicester and Blaby have been able to resolve their differences on this local issue and ensure that the residents of Blaby and the farmers that rely on these markets to generate income can continue to enjoy the market on a regular basis for many years to come.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Seven o'clock.